Suggestions, wishlist and ideas for Panzer Corps 2 gameplay

[captainjack]

>Strategy gamers are people who are not graphics crazy

As someone who plays Nethack with graphic tiles rather than Ascii symbols, I have to agree that while graphics aren't the main thing, they do matter!

[Retributarr]

I'd-Like to Venture-Forth with an alternative Gaming Idea!.

I'm not saying to deviate from what you're presently doing, just however maybey try to add some more intrigue, expectation,unknown's and discovery to these Game-Platform's.

As in the Case of the "PanzerCorps" Game, why-not also have an additional "Alternative Pre-WWII Game-Set-Package" included for those who would like to try some Different-Situation's, whereby history does not have to necessarily follow All or some the '' Actual historical event's. Different decision's & course's of Action by the player could change what the actual outcome previously was, to something that was-not before!.
For Example let's try FRANCE to begin with: ***What if the Maginot-Line was instead extended fully from where it actually ended at the Ardenne' to the Coast-Line...as was initially intended, but the idea was soon dropped so as not to offend the Belgian's!.***What if 'Charles De Gaule' was actually able to further & fully develop his Tank-Corp's & Tank-Tactic's, where also he wanted to form Armored-Group's/ Division's like the German's did & Vastly Increase the size of the Tank Forces to the extent that he wanted too? (Guderian Used Charles De Gaule's concept's & further developed them). He did not intend for his Tank's to be 'piece-mealed' out into small unit group's to the Infantry-Division's. ***What if the French had destroyed the large fuel-dump's somewhere north of Paris (I can't recall where it was now) before the German armoured forces managed to get a hold of it, might it not have affected the very rapid drive to the coast & into France itself?.

Germany is next: ***Biggest mistake Hitler made was 'Declaring WAR on the United States day's after the Pearl Harbour Attack, so...now, what if he hadn't carried on through with that?.***Hitler interfered with Military Technological Advancement's to his detriment!. Sometime After the fall of FRANCE, i don't know when, but his General's wanted to make Upgrades to their Military-Equipment, some such as much improved Tank's & Aircraft (Long-Range-Heavy-Bomber's & ME-262 Included). Hiter disagreed as to say...With the rapid & Quick fall of the low-Countries & France, that there was no-need for such extravagant medeling's!, as the equipment they had was as good as it need's to get!. Hitler also wanted to make the ME-262 into a Fighter-Bomber, instead of just being an Interceptor. Had he not interfered in the original jet construction programme, the skies would have been filled with these Jet's clearing the skies of Allied Bomber's. RADAR & AIRFIELDS!!!: What if Hermann Wilhelm Goering had continually bombed the Radar & Airfield installation's instead of just briefly in the opening phase's of 'The Battle Of Britain', Operation Seelowe would probably then have taken place.What i have put forward is but just the 'Tip Of The Ice-Berg', there is so-much-more to this particular topic!.

Britain & The United States: I can't find too-much fault with either of them except for 'in particular', they both should have had up-to-date intelligence on how effective the German Armoured Division's were, and to have information on how difficult it was to destroy the Panzer-Tank's. They apparently paid little-heed/acknowledgement to this fact. Hence both Countries developed large Number's of Inferior-Quality-Tank's that did them an insulting injustice!.
When the invasion of Normandy/France took place, the English-Channel for the most part was a very Stormy place with high-wind's & high wave's. That invasion nearly collapsed/failed!,in-fact most of the 'Mulbury-Harbours' were tossed about out of postion or sunk. 'Invasion-Failure' would have set them back by about 2-year's before another major effort could have taken place. These features, if they came to pass could have drastically changed the outcome of the War.

Russia: What if for some reason Stalin hadn't liquidated 80% of his Experienced-Officer-Class, the Invasion of Finland would likely have been much more successful as well as later on when the German's invaded Russia-Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941,millions of Russian's who surrendered and gave up without a determined-organized fight might have also done much better!. What if Stalin had listened to his Covert-Spy's embedded in the Wehrmact about the exact-day & time of the invasion of the Soviet-Union instead of ignoring their warnings?.

***An Oilfield Too Far - Baku/Azerbaijan or Bust: A possible Game-Changer!.
Control of Baku was one of Germany’s main reasons for invading Russia, alongside Ukraine’s abundant and rich agricultural land. The Argument is this: The main argument is that even had the German Army reached Baku, getting all that oil back to Germany to be refined was beyond their logistical capability. Secondly, by the time the German Army even reached Baku, all of the oilfields would have been blown – much like they had with Maikop. Now however in an Alternative situation, maybe if a combined Sea Invasion force with Paratroop's mixed in might, just have might have prevented the large scale destruction of the Oil-Fields by the Russian's...instead of just doing a land thrust towards Baku, which would have given the Soviet's ample time to do their dirty-work.

Could the Soviet Union have continued fighting World War II without Caucasus oil?
In 1942, Germany's Fall Blau was initially aimed at capturing or interdicting shipments of oil from the Caucasus to the rest of the Soviet Union. Where would the Soviet Union have gotten its oil from, if Germany instead had pursued and succeeded in an all-out attempt on the "Caucasus?" Perhaps Army Groups A and B would have moved in parallel to the lower Volga, bypassed Stalingrad, captured Astrakhan on the Caspian, and move far enough beyond to interdict oil shipments. Or Germany could have sent Manstein's 11th Army and Hoth's 4th Army along with Army Group A to the Caucasus, (leaving Paulus between the Don and the Volga for flank protection), thereby capturing Grozny and isolating Baku.
Early in the war, the Soviet Union had moved hundreds of factories to the Urals from soon-to-occupied territory to Sverdlovsk and Magnitogorsk. My sense is that they would have had adequate, though not ample supplies of oil to fight a war from around the Urals, and east of Moscow, without the Caucasus. After all, Germany managed to continue fighting with "only" Romanian oil supplies (and beyond 1944 without them).
Hitler had commissioned a small team of oil engineers to secure and oversee production of captured facilities, though 70% of Poland’s capacity ended up falling into Russian hands – forcing Germany to have to buy it. By the time Case Blue was put into motion, Germany raised the Technical Oil Brigade – a 15,000 man strong group of oil industry specialists, technicians and engineers, to repair Soviet oil field facilities. At least 6,000 of these men accompanied Army Group A’s drive into the Northern Caucasus. New oil companies like Ost-Öl and Karpaten-Öl were even formed to facilitate the exploitation of Caucasus Oil – to repair damaged wells and restore local refineries.
Had the German Army reached Baku – it did have the technical capacity to make use of the oil. The oil did not need to be railed back to Germany. Though certainly a massive logistical challenge, the only technical challenge involved how many drilling and refining facilities were damaged beyond repair. In fact, a majority of Baku’s facilities were destroyed pre-emptively just as the German Army was approaching Grozny. The remaining oil production was still considerable and there was still at least one wild card the German Army could throw at Baku.

So, with each player of Which-Ever Country by what-ever-mean's (Random Chance or Deliberate Choice or perhaps even a combination of both) will determine their own course and eventual fate!. Let The Game's Begin!.
Retributar

[boredatwork]

I no longer have a desk job so I can't afford to spend hours involved in forum discussion like I did the first time around.

I made a bunch of suggestions during PzC Beta and later (feel free to search my post history if you care) including "Reform Units": which was eventually adapted.

I won't write my usual wall of text but if you really want a concept to ***allow*** you to improve the AI I'll repost my original suggestion from 4-5 years ago. For those that missed the discussion one of the reasons the current AI is weak is because a stronger AI inevitably means more core unit death which negatively impacts the casual RPG nature of the game. Also there is a HUGE balance difference between a unit that is reduced to 1/10 vs. a unit that is completely destroyed.

How much it is acceptable for you to lose Core units regardless is it obvious player's mistake in question or overwhelming challenge causing it?

I think your question is flawed because currently it is possible to lose core units without the player really making mistakes or really being challenged in the process.

This seems like something that would be good to tie to the difficulty level. On Colonel you should rarely lose core units, and/or reform units should allow any destroyed units to come back to the battlefield with minimal experience lost and should cost the same prestige as buying a new unit. On a higher difficulty, like FM, the AI can be more aggressive at focusing and killing some of your units, so you should lose some units here and there. In addition the reform units option should work similarly to how it does now: all experience lost. I'd go further and remove the heroes too.

I disagree that there is an innevitable link between unit turnover and increasing challenge - Just because some people get their biggest enjoyment out of the RPG elements of the game does **NOT** mean we're looking for easy content.

On the contrary I would argue given that the units in PzC are IMO unrealistically fragile (for an operational scale) the current perma death actually works against making it challenging in a good way. Having the AI abandon a strong defensive position just to pick off one of your units while simultaneously making itself much easier to kill by the rest of your force the next turn isn't making the game *challenging* in the fun sense of the word - merely annoying. Instead of being rewarded for good play, players are harshly punished for not playing perfectly. And perfect frequently means, at least in the DLC, methodical, cautious, boring advance because there is no reward for agressive daring maneuver commensurate with the risk.

Because it is so annoying to lose an elite core unit, particularly to random chance the developers are forced to lower the overall difficulty to reduce the possiblity of it happening. Consequently in the average scenario if a player is playing good he'll have his entire core available from start to finish increasing the requirements to provide late game AI spam spawn cannon fodder to keep the game challenging.

Short of a major mechanics change...

I would rather see core "deaths" merely represent units that are so fatigued/in need of maintenace/disorganised that they are permently withdrawn from the current **scenario** to rest and refit but otherwise still "alive" and with enough veterans that they retain most of their experience.

Do that and you can make difficulty *much* harder by giving the AI tougher units (via scaling the base strength above 10) and making it more ruthless so that it can actually force many units to withdraw leaving the player without the resources to successfully complete a scenario, without actually impacting the player's RPG experience.



Post 1.10 that is how I'm enjoying the game, albeit via cheat codes and the ability to mod difficulty - using reform units/exp to keep my units alive from start to finish (albeit at the cost of a star of experience) while playing on a custom difficulty level somewhere between FM and Manstein. The game is more challenging in a good way now as opposed to the YOINK!!!YOU WERE KILLING ME BUT I NINJAED YOUR FAVORITE INFANTRY, TIME TO RELOAD SUCKER!!! "challenge" it presented before.

The other suggestion is give scenario designers the option for some of the AI forces to be deployed randomly to increase replay value and keep recon units viable.

[Sourdust]

Two more thoughts:

- Allow the player to set a "posture", either for individual units, or for the force as a whole. Different postures can modify stats and/or combat results - and each posture would have advantages and disadvantages. For instance, a "delay" posture could halve combat losses for both attacker and defender, and result in the defender always retreating after combat. Or a "blitz" posture could add +1 speed and +1 initiative for units, at the cost of -2 attack/defence or +33% losses or something like that. Having a range of possible postures (say blitz / prepared attack / neutral / defend / delay for front-line ground combat units) would open up a lot of tactical depth, without really over-complicating the interface or mechanics. Indeed, it's sort of expanding on the "toggles" that are already in game for various transport modes, or switching between AT and AA posture for AA guns, toggles for some artillery units, etc. Different postures would be needed for various classes of air, naval, and support units. Posture could only be changed before movement and action each turn, and could not be changed again until next turn.

- Consider nation-specific modifiers, special abilities, postures etc. This would reflect different nation's strengths and weaknesses, and make playing different nations even more distinct, and not just a matter of differences in gear. For instance, potentially "blitz" posture should only be available to Germany, at least early in the war. Germany's other defining strength is battlefield flexibility - eg the use of ad hoc Kampfgruppe. So maybe German forces get additional shots for units that are under 6 strength points, reflecting the tenacity of their units even when seriously depleted. Maybe US gets special bonuses involving close coordination of air, artillery and ground forces. Maybe Japan gets a "banzai" posture, which adds to attack but doubles losses taken, etc. Brits get something related to artillery, perhaps. All would need careful balancing.

Oh, and I see that OOB comes in for considerable criticism in these forums. I have the game, and I too have found it suffers from performance issues. But the reason I don't play it is harder to put my finger on. Something about the pacing of the game seems off... I like a lot of the mechanics in theory, but it just doesn't gel for me into a game that has me wanting to play just one more turn.

[hs1611]

I see a lot of suggestions here.
Some I like, some I don't. That's normal, I guess.
Let me just repeat something I wrote a while ago in another thread:

Some adjustments and changes will be, of course, welcomed to PzC2. Many of them have been discussed/suggested here.

But the main thing is DON'T OVERCOMPLICATE.
There are other, more serious??? games out there, where the player can micromanage to his heart's desire.
The beauty of Panzer Corps, like its predecessor Panzer General, is its simplicity.

So, please, whatever you do, DON'T OVERCOMPLICATE.

This means, no supply lines, no unit facings, no unit postures, etc...

As for 2D or 3D, I couldn't care less.
If it works on my current PC I'll play it. If it doesn't I won't.
As simple as that.

[Yrfin]

Some adjustments and changes will be, of course, welcomed to PzC2. Many of them have been discussed/suggested here.
So, please, whatever you do, DON'T OVERCOMPLICATE.
This means, no supply lines, no unit facings, no unit postures, etc...

Im agreed with "no supply lines, no unit facings".
But, why not using "unit postures" (I call it "stances").

For example, I have fighter/bomber airplane (switchable).
First stance: limited Fighter.
Second stance (after switch on): tactical Bomber.
You can switch it only once in flying.

Is it OVERCOMPLICATE ?

[hs1611]

No, no. That is not what I meant by unit postures.
That is a switchable unit, and we already have that in the game.
And, in my opinion, new switchable units are welcome. Your example is a good one.

Postures are suggested in the post before mine.
Things like, defensive posture, attack posture, delay, ambush, blitz, etc, etc, etc...
Each posture changes the unit's stats in some way. +1 attack, -2 defense, etc, etc, etc...
The possibilities are endless.

That's what I call OVERCOMPLICATING, for this game.

I used to play an old game called, IIRC, Age of Rifles, where you adjusted unit postures (march column, attack column, deployment in line, etc...).
It worked for that game, but that was a more tactical game than this one,
And I eventually stopped playing it anyway.

[Sourdust]

Well, we're agreed on no supply lines and no unit facings!

I'm not sure adding "postures" would be overcomplicating. There wouldn't be any change to the core combat mechanics, just a set of additional modifiers. The idea is to add a bit of depth without adding complexity.

The existing switches are already a mechanism for changing unit traits in important ways. Mechanised infantry in PC already effectively have 2 postures - (a) move fast but with major combat penalties; and (b) move on foot with regular combat stats. I'm just proposing a richer set of options...Postures would just be an extension of a concept that is already in the game.

[Yrfin]

The existing switches are already a mechanism for changing unit traits in important ways. Mechanised infantry in PC already effectively have 2 postures - (a) move fast but with major combat penalties; and (b) move on foot with regular combat stats. I'm just proposing a richer set of options...Postures would just be an extension of a concept that is already in the game.

Sure, im already use "posures" for Cavalry and Krads (switchable).
1. Ordinary stats (move 5, spot 3)
2. Dismounted Cavalry (stats like ordinary Infantry - move 3, spot 2, GD -1).

So, its don't looking overcomplicating.

[crisse88]

In a Panzer corps 2 if possible I would like to see the following:

-I love your game trailers keep the same style

-A ladder system for competitive play (and a better multiplayer UI in general)

-Chat system outside of games

-The look of the hexes changes by the intensity of bombings and combat

-More varied in looks hexes

-If equipped with a shovel infantry units can now dig fox holes and trenches if put to the task/ given enough of time (can not be used if unit is in combat)

-Better MOD support including steam workshop

-A map overview which colors the owned areas to the front and pockets in german/allied/soviet colors etc

-A more authentic sound engine

-A new game mode that includes:

Resource->supply line->Factory/Factory output->supply line->front

Description:

Certain hexes generate a certain resource for an instance Swedish iron ore, Caucasian oil or Ukrainian wheat fields. You can modify the way of your supply line but greater the distance the

less resource you get. You have factories in which is dedicated to construct tanks or air planes or food etc. These factories can be bombed to decrease factory output. You have to

transport these to the front.

Panzer corps is my favorite game and I hope you'll take some of the feedback into consideration

[goose_2]

Two more thoughts:

- Allow the player to set a "posture", either for individual units, or for the force as a whole. Different postures can modify stats and/or combat results - and each posture would have advantages and disadvantages. For instance, a "delay" posture could halve combat losses for both attacker and defender, and result in the defender always retreating after combat. Or a "blitz" posture could add +1 speed and +1 initiative for units, at the cost of -2 attack/defence or +33% losses or something like that. Having a range of possible postures (say blitz / prepared attack / neutral / defend / delay for front-line ground combat units) would open up a lot of tactical depth, without really over-complicating the interface or mechanics. Indeed, it's sort of expanding on the "toggles" that are already in game for various transport modes, or switching between AT and AA posture for AA guns, toggles for some artillery units, etc. Different postures would be needed for various classes of air, naval, and support units. Posture could only be changed before movement and action each turn, and could not be changed again until next turn.

- Consider nation-specific modifiers, special abilities, postures etc. This would reflect different nation's strengths and weaknesses, and make playing different nations even more distinct, and not just a matter of differences in gear. For instance, potentially "blitz" posture should only be available to Germany, at least early in the war. Germany's other defining strength is battlefield flexibility - eg the use of ad hoc Kampfgruppe. So maybe German forces get additional shots for units that are under 6 strength points, reflecting the tenacity of their units even when seriously depleted. Maybe US gets special bonuses involving close coordination of air, artillery and ground forces. Maybe Japan gets a "banzai" posture, which adds to attack but doubles losses taken, etc. Brits get something related to artillery, perhaps. All would need careful balancing.

Oh, and I see that OOB comes in for considerable criticism in these forums. I have the game, and I too have found it suffers from performance issues. But the reason I don't play it is harder to put my finger on. Something about the pacing of the game seems off... I like a lot of the mechanics in theory, but it just doesn't gel for me into a game that has me wanting to play just one more turn.

These 2 ideas have some serious merit. It might seriously complicate things, but adds additional flavor to the game that is for sure.

[Yrfin]

-If equipped with a shovel infantry units can now dig fox holes and trenches if put to the task/ given enough of time (can not be used if unit is in combat)

I think, its Enginees ability, none Infantry.

[jeff00t]

no supply lines?

there are players who never play order of battle to say that? in order of battle it is perfect way to get supply. There are possibilities to cut off supplies, it is genious. Why don't make the same system in panzer corps 2 ??

[nikivdd]

no supply lines?

there are players who never play order of battle to say that? in order of battle it is perfect way to get supply. There are possibilities to cut off supplies, it is genious. Why don't make the same system in panzer corps 2 ??

Panzer Corps without supply lines is as logical as OOB with supply lines.
Let's not make Panzer Corps 2 a kind of OOB clone.

[Farre]

Hmm interesting, then i want SS units (divisions) in the game and they have different camoflague!!!

[asuser]

The new unit icons... does somebody knows, which kind of modelling the developers use for this:

Copy of a real existing model or a completely new self builded up model?

[nikivdd]

The new unit icons... does somebody knows, which kind of modelling the developers use:

Copy of a real existing model or an completely new self builded up model?

My best guess is that initial unit database will be comparable to Panzer Corps v1.0

[Ruggs225]

no supply lines?

there are players who never play order of battle to say that? in order of battle it is perfect way to get supply. There are possibilities to cut off supplies, it is genious. Why don't make the same system in panzer corps 2 ??

I play order of batttlw and i think the supply lines are awful. It is way to easy to cut off supply and the the thought process doesnt make sense. You can be cut off from supply even though there are no enemy units between you and your supply line just because an enemy unit drove by it. This lets one unit cut offf supply from behind enemy lines which makes no sense.

While supply lines have merit it is really hard to implement correctly. Another thing that annoys me with OOB is how the supply pine doesnt actually move all together so all the land behind your troops is supplied if there are no enemy units there. Example is if i move aggresivey i can leave big tracts of land which is enemy lines even if there is no enemy unit and and is behind all my front lines.

I think panzer corps system of ammo amd fuel is much better. Hopefully it doesnt change.

[rubyjuno]

I too hope that the Panzer Corps system of ammo and fuel is much preferable to the horrible way Order of Battle deals with supply. It was one of the main reasons I gave up on Order of Battle . Keep the mechanics of Panzer Corps simple!

[hgbraun]

Great news. I'm really looking forward to this.

My suggestions:
-Heroes are great. But as somebody wrote before, give them some more unique abilities not just bonuses like +1 hard attack or +1 movement. Maybe recon-abilities for tanks or such. I liked the specialties in Panzer General 2 a little more than in Panzer Corps.
-A bit similar to the first point. Unit customization would be great. Vegetation for camo, track-segments as additional armor, customized engines for higher range, external fuel tanks, logs for Russian tanks.
-Combined arms like tanks accompanied by infantry. Infantry with additional mortars/artillery/tank-destroyers. It would even be somewhat historical as the idea of combined arms developed through WWII

OK, it would somehow break with the traditional Panzer Corps/General-mechanics but I'm sure, you would be able to pull it off.

Greetings from Germany