New Panzer Campaigns Features & call for Manuals Updates

[76mm]

These changes sound good...

I wanted to check though, about the issue which was discussed a few months back, about the fact that units can get disrupted for moving at night, but not for a successful assault followed by occupation of the taken hex. There was some discussion about whether this was WAD or a bug, but in my view it doesn't make much sense...

[Mr Grumpy]

These three changes are excellent news and I applaud the design team and JTS for adding new tweaks to the engine to allow the simulation of more types of terrain and situations. 

However as someone who has tried and failed over the years to contain the spread of optional rules available to players, the addition of two more opt rules is (IMO) not great news, over the years I have been here the plethora of optional rules shown in the dialogue box (and their effects) has caused more debate and confusion than just about any other subject, so while I understand that the easiest/ simplest way to introduce them is to make them an optional rule, in the case of the opt amphibious/opt patrolling rules I would have preferred to have seen these great additions added to the main rules rather than the opt rules if that is at all possible.

Lets be honest, what player looking for a historical simulation would not want night fatigue, recon spotting, artillery setup included in the main rules and not an option?

[Aaron]

These three changes are excellent news and I applaud the design team and JTS for adding new tweaks to the engine to allow the simulation of more types of terrain and situations. 

However as someone who has tried and failed over the years to contain the spread of optional rules available to players, the addition of two more opt rules is (IMO) not great news, over the years I have been here the plethora of optional rules shown in the dialogue box (and their effects) has caused more debate and confusion than just about any other subject, so while I understand that the easiest/ simplest way to introduce them is to make them an optional rule, in the case of the opt amphibious/opt patrolling rules I would have preferred to have seen these great additions added to the main rules rather than the opt rules if that is at all possible.

Lets be honest, what player looking for a historical simulation would not want night fatigue, recon spotting, artillery setup included in the main rules and not an option?

  Agreed, as your aware the worry always comes back to older games and will it cause issues to an older title. Easier to just have an optional rule.

3x rule is something else that gets talked about from time to time and are there other ways of doing it, yes there are but will it cause issues with other titles, maybe. Each would have to be tested and re balanced where needed but yes i do agree on the 5 you mentioned but then again i dont play every title.

[Strela]

These three changes are excellent news and I applaud the design team and JTS for adding new tweaks to the engine to allow the simulation of more types of terrain and situations. 

However as someone who has tried and failed over the years to contain the spread of optional rules available to players, the addition of two more opt rules is (IMO) not great news, over the years I have been here the plethora of optional rules shown in the dialogue box (and their effects) has caused more debate and confusion than just about any other subject, so while I understand that the easiest/ simplest way to introduce them is to make them an optional rule, in the case of the opt amphibious/opt patrolling rules I would have preferred to have seen these great additions added to the main rules rather than the opt rules if that is at all possible.

Lets be honest, what player looking for a historical simulation would not want night fatigue, recon spotting, artillery setup included in the main rules and not an option?

What Aaron said....

We have a 'big' issue adding more rules without breaking previous games. If, for example we made the optional amphibious rule standard then players could be crossing the Volga etc when we actually don't want them to be able too. Many of the optional rules that were created, were for very specific situations in particular games. I'm not quite certain why, but the whole design approach for Normandy resulted in a plethora of different rules compares to Smolensk.

It's very hard to turn back the clock, standardise and potentially break Normandy for example.

That said, there are some rules that could become mainstream. Recon Spotting is a good example. I think counter battery fire is another as is possibly low visibility air effects and night fatigue. But this may break some of the earlier scenarios or at the very least invalidate their current VP targets. So its hard to stand here and be definitive.

The final point was what options players like. I was shocked when I started working with a player who wanted completely different settings to the norm. It turned out they thought there selection gave a much better game. We start standardising optional rules, then I can see this kind of player becoming incensed.

So net net, we will continue to add optional rules as necessary. Please think of these as more akin to parameter settings where a design decisions has been deliberately made to include a particular rule to simulate a particular feature. Ignore the rest and know that the designers will provide the recommended settings and why. All others are irrelevant for this particular game.

David

[Kool Kat]

Hi Everyone,

1. Optional Amphibious Rules. As written in the manual: Some units are classified as being Amphibious.  Amphibious units in Travel Mode can cross River and Canal hex sides at the cost of their entire Movement Allowance. If the Optional Amphibious Rule is selected, Amphibious units can enter and exit a full water at the cost of their entire Movement Allowance.  It can only enter and exit the water hex via a non-water hex. Essentially this rule allows a unit to traverse through a single full water hex. Previously amphibious units could only cross hex side rivers and canals. This rule was needed for Walchern Island scenarios and will be useful for other titles.
   

Hope these are all welcome changes and again please let me know of any changes that are needed for the manuals.

Thanks!

David

Hi David:

In the Modern Campaigns Series, it is not possible to "force" an amphibious unit to cross adjacent River and Canal hex sides. For example, I have a WP mech unit adjacent to a river hex. I place it into Travel Mode and then attempt to move it to the adjacent hex on the other side of the River hex. Instead of crossing over the adjacent River hex, it speeds down the road network and tries to cross at the first available heavy bridge!   

How can players avoid that misstep?  

Hi,

I just created a test scenario in Danube '85 and tried to cross a PT-76, Marines (in amphibious vehicles) and a 9P148 (AT-5) over a river.

I had no issue, I put them in travel mode and then clicked on the hex across the river and they moved there...!

David

Hi David: 

I was clicking on the unit in travel-mode and using the cursor to drag it to the adjacent hex across the river. It's what I do when I want units to move longer distances... so, that must have been the issue! User error! 

Thank you David.

[Plain Ian]

So select unit and right click works but drag and drop doesn't?

Hmmm this sounds more like a path finding algorithm error rather than a 'user error'?

[Mr Grumpy]

These three changes are excellent news and I applaud the design team and JTS for adding new tweaks to the engine to allow the simulation of more types of terrain and situations. 

However as someone who has tried and failed over the years to contain the spread of optional rules available to players, the addition of two more opt rules is (IMO) not great news, over the years I have been here the plethora of optional rules shown in the dialogue box (and their effects) has caused more debate and confusion than just about any other subject, so while I understand that the easiest/ simplest way to introduce them is to make them an optional rule, in the case of the opt amphibious/opt patrolling rules I would have preferred to have seen these great additions added to the main rules rather than the opt rules if that is at all possible.

Lets be honest, what player looking for a historical simulation would not want night fatigue, recon spotting, artillery setup included in the main rules and not an option?

What Aaron said....

We have a 'big' issue adding more rules without breaking previous games. If, for example we made the optional amphibious rule standard then players could be crossing the Volga etc when we actually don't want them to be able too. Many of the optional rules that were created, were for very specific situations in particular games. I'm not quite certain why, but the whole design approach for Normandy resulted in a plethora of different rules compares to Smolensk.

It's very hard to turn back the clock, standardise and potentially break Normandy for example.

That said, there are some rules that could become mainstream. Recon Spotting is a good example. I think counter battery fire is another as is possibly low visibility air effects and night fatigue. But this may break some of the earlier scenarios or at the very least invalidate their current VP targets. So its hard to stand here and be definitive.

The final point was what options players like. I was shocked when I started working with a player who wanted completely different settings to the norm. It turned out they thought there selection gave a much better game. We start standardising optional rules, then I can see this kind of player becoming incensed.

So net net, we will continue to add optional rules as necessary. Please think of these as more akin to parameter settings where a design decisions has been deliberately made to include a particular rule to simulate a particular feature. Ignore the rest and know that the designers will provide the recommended settings and why. All others are irrelevant for this particular game.

David

Thanks for your reply I fully understand your concerns about breaking older titles, but I wondered if maybe the new amphibious opt rule could have been avoided by making units with this new fording ability a new unit type so avoiding any impact with older scenarios?

While I happily admit I have not played all of the PzC titles, I still believe that taking Recon spotting, night fatigue and arty setup out of the opt rule dialogue box and inserting them into the main rules would not have an impact on any older scenario that would be enough to break it?

Anyway just my POV, Glenn asked JT about this years ago and received a negative response so I know I am on a hiding to nothing here............

[Partizanka]

Hi Everyone,

Firstly as part of the push to get Scheldt '44 finished, I am currently working on updating the game manuals.

I have trolled through the threads here and seen Green's update for the revised description for 'man equivalents' for guns/vehicles as well as clarified artillery fire in tandem with dust spotting - does anyone else have anything for me?

Please post in this thread any areas that you have an issue with or require further clarification in the manuals, please.

Secondly, there are a number of code changes coming with Scheldt '44 that will be available for the earlier titles when we do the next patch cycle.

The first two, are new optional rules;

1. Optional Amphibious Rules. As written in the manual: Some units are classified as being Amphibious.  Amphibious units in Travel Mode can cross River and Canal hex sides at the cost of their entire Movement Allowance. If the Optional Amphibious Rule is selected, Amphibious units can enter and exit a full water at the cost of their entire Movement Allowance.  It can only enter and exit the water hex via a non-water hex. Essentially this rule allows a unit to traverse through a single full water hex. Previously amphibious units could only cross hex side rivers and canals. This rule was needed for Walchern Island scenarios and will be useful for other titles.
   
2. Extended Patrolling. Currently, While Patrolling, the unit will negate the ability of any Partisan unit within Deception range of having any Deception effects. If the Option Extended Patrolling Rule is selected, patrolling units will also negate the ability of any deployed Deception unit within Deception range of having any Deception effects. We have quite a number of irregular/resistance fighters in Scheldt and this change allows the German player to counter some of their effects. This is an optional rule as we don't want to mess up Deception units in earlier games.
   

The third change is to Recon Spotting. Recon units tend be weak combat units and rarely able of using their specialized capabilities. Players find that they move these forward to 'bump' into enemy units meaning that they are rarely used as they should be. From the manual; All units can spot enemy units if they are in clear hexes or have moved or fired in visible range. If the optional Recon Spotting rule is selected, units that are concealed or have not performed any action can be spotted by specialist reconnaissance units. By selecting recon spotting, a reconnaissance unit will use one third of its movement points to attempt to reveal concealed enemy units at a range of current visibility plus one hex. Any units revealed may be either fully spotted or marked as an unknown unit. Subsequent recon spotting attempts may reveal more information.   

This is an important change. Currently, all units within visible range are revealed at the start of any turn. Using Recon spotting is useless unless the recon unit moves at least one hex forward and then tries to spot units that would now be in visible range. This rule change allows recon units to spot units at one hex beyond visible range if they complete a successful recon spotting action. For example, if visibility is currently two, then recon spotting could reveal units that are three hexes away. There are some caveats here, unlike patrolling which reveals all units within two hexes, units at the +1 range must be in a hex that would be normally visible if the visibility was at that range. Secondly, spotting the unit at the extended range is not guaranteed. There are three possibilities; a unit is not spotted, a unit is spotted, but it is indicated as an unknown unit, or the unit is fully spotted. If further Recon spotting attempts are made, more units may be revealed or unknown units could become fully spotted units.

The reason this has been added is to take into account that Recon units are trained observers and have better optical and communication equipment. It means that players can use their recon units at the beginning of a turn to spot units that are one hex beyond the current visible range and move units accordingly. There is now less need to use recons to 'bump' into enemy units and there is value to use them as observer type units. We are still testing all the potential variables with this change, but this is expected to be part of the normal recon spotting rules.

Hope these are all welcome changes and again please let me know of any changes that are needed for the manuals.

Thanks!

David

Pardon if I missed where this may have already been discussed, but will we see the same extreme FOW we have in Japan'45 and '46 where disruption is not visible till the following turn? At first I was apprehensive of the rule, but now  I fully embrace it, since I now play a bit differently, appreciating the sim aspect over gaming for victory. I do hope this rule shows up in future releases, updates, and FWWC, as well.

[CheerfullyInsane]

Pardon if I missed where this may have already been discussed, but will we see the same extreme FOW we have in Japan'45 and '46 where disruption is not visible till the following turn? At first I was apprehensive of the rule, but now  I fully embrace it, since I now play a bit differently, appreciating the sim aspect over gaming for victory. I do hope this rule shows up in future releases, updates, and FWWC, as well.

It's already in all the titles (AFAIK).
It's an optional rule called Delayed Disruption Reporting.
The only difference is that in the Japan games, it is on by default.

[Partizanka]

Pardon if I missed where this may have already been discussed, but will we see the same extreme FOW we have in Japan'45 and '46 where disruption is not visible till the following turn? At first I was apprehensive of the rule, but now  I fully embrace it, since I now play a bit differently, appreciating the sim aspect over gaming for victory. I do hope this rule shows up in future releases, updates, and FWWC, as well.

It's already in all the titles (AFAIK).
It's an optional rule called Delayed Disruption Reporting.
The only difference is that in the Japan games, it is on by default.

Ha! Hiding in plain sight. I haven't looked at the optional rules in ages since we usually play default. It is nice to know it is there as an option for the future. Thank you for your answer.