Slitherine

I already asked for this in Panzer Corps numerous times; do me favor and add...

CITY NAMES

It has always bugged me that all these cities on the maps didn't show any names, unless you hovered over a city. City names really make maps come alive, it adds immersion, it adds history, makes missions easier to understand, makes it easier to share battle situations with others, etc, city names are in my opinion a necessity. We had many people begging for the same thing in Order of Battle and with success, so don't make the mistake with Panzer Corps 2. Make it optional if you have to, but don't leave it out.

One more thing to pay attention to: SCALING.

More and more people are using 2K and 4K monitors (eventually I will too), so don't make the mistake that many other developers made (Crusader Kings II and some other Paradox games are a good example of that), resulting in hard to read text and other important information or you're going to annoy a lot of people. You're taking a step forward in graphics, so in my opinion scaling should be an important part of that.

As for game play; I don't have any major requests and leave that up to others. I would however appreciate some kind of supply system, even if it's basic, but other than that I would like to see the game pretty much the way it is now, but just refined.

donger wrote:I already asked for this in Panzer Corps numerous times; do me favor and add...

CITY NAMES

It has always bugged me that all these cities on the maps didn't show any names, unless you hovered over a city. City names really make maps come alive, it adds immersion, it adds history, makes missions easier to understand, makes it easier to share battle situations with others, etc, city names are in my opinion a necessity. We had many people begging for the same thing in Order of Battle and with success, so don't make the mistake with Panzer Corps 2. Make it optional if you have to, but don't leave it out.

One more thing to pay attention to: SCALING.

More and more people are using 2K and 4K monitors (eventually I will too), so don't make the mistake that many other developers made (Crusader Kings II and some other Paradox games are a good example of that), resulting in hard to read text and other important information or you're going to annoy a lot of people. You're taking a step forward in graphics, so in my opinion scaling should be an important part of that.

As for game play; I don't have any major requests and leave that up to others. I would however appreciate some kind of supply system, even if it's basic, but other than that I would like to see the game pretty much the way it is now, but just refined.

Excellent Posting!!!: Especially where the comment " so don't make the mistake that many other developers made (Crusader Kings II and some other Paradox games are a good example of that), resulting in hard to read text and other important information or you're going to annoy a lot of people. You're taking a step forward in graphics, so in my opinion scaling should be an important part of that."

With my 55-Inch LCD Television Screen I still needed a "MAGNIFYING GLASS" to read the onscreen game text!!!...for (Crusader Kings II ,what 'Mental-Midget-Slope-Headed-Moron' devised that 'Cranal-Anal-Stupidity???', as well as the obvious user-friendly buttons to pause or continue the game and so on were impossible to find!.

Some Units Have Not Moved Yet!, End Turn?.

Some?, Which/What/Where are these Unit's?. At least 'Order of Battle' has the courtesy to direct you to exactly which Unit's have not yet moved!. Panzer Corp's could/should also do the same!.

Click NEXT UNIT button.
Map moves to next unit that can still MOVE or ATTACK.
Repeat until you cicle through all the units that can still MOVE or ATTACK.

There are plenty of little, and not so little, things that could be changed or improved.
This is not one of them.

I was thinking about organization levels and unit allowance. What if you started off with only being able to have 6 units in your core. Basically a battalion like structure. As you gain experience and rank in a campaign the number of units goes up in some fashion that corresponds to your rank. example: BN Commander gets 5, Company Commander 15, a brigade 30 etc. If you accomplish some feats you are allotted extra slots for achievements within your rank but the extra slots stay with you as you are promoted.

Hero's, how about enabling hero reassignments? As a commander, you can move heroes around to suit different needs based on weapons class. But some heroes could be specific to a weapons class like Panzer Ace + 5 attack other armored units, +2 attack other armored units in low visibility ect. While others have the ability to affect all weapons classes with general bonuses like +2 attack +1 defense +1 range ect.

Specialties that can be assigned to heroes or units that achieve feats. Like Kill 20 tanks and you can add an attribute to the weapon or heroes like terrain bonuses or range extensions or increase fuel capacity, range, ammo storage, sighting attack/defense bonuses ect.

Visible zones of control and supply. That is something I liked about Order of Battle. Have varying cut supply lines effects on different units and unit classes.

I would like to see a more authentic representation of combat and outcomes. Technically, you can divide ground attacks into 4 categories:
1. Close Assaults (zero hex range)- the shortest range and most accurate (~1/2)/lethal attacks with the most effective weapons being submachine/machine
pistol, hand grenades, portable flamethrowers, demolitions, e.g. man portable weaponry. Vehicles and crew served weapons could not participate
in these attacks because their mounted weapons have a "dead" zone at this range; however weapons crews could use their personal weapons
in self defense. NOTE: suppressed units still get defensive fire but targets are picked randomly; not in order, i.e. random fire distribution.
2. Direct Fire (one hex range)- Standard "battle sight zero" attacks (~1/3 AP,1/4 HE[AT]) with initiative in order of AP strength. This allows mounted
cannons and crew served weapons to conduct lethal and suppressive fires on targets prior to assaults without risking close contact with the enemy.
3. Ranging Observed Fires (two hex range)- Stand-off elevated attacks (~1/6 AP & HE[AT]) with initiative in order of AP strength. This allows weapons
attacks out of range of defenders. NOTE: the attacking unit itself must be able to spot its target.
4. Indirect Fire (two or more hex range)- Stand-off elevated attacks (~1/10 HE observed, 1/20 HE unobserved) with no initiative. This represents
mortars, rockets and long ranging cannon fire. NOTE: indirect referring to an intermediate observer directing the targeting; Short range mortars
and rockets could use 3. above if able to spot their target.

LtC sir, your comments get to the very core (pun intended) of the PzC2 issue of unit representations/definition(s). I found treating infantry and artillery
as regiments and armored fighting vehicles as battalions to be the best "fit". Excluding infantry, EVERY other "unit" was represented in PzC1 by its unique
icon and performance characteristics ( MA, SA. HA, defense, etc.). This affirms the fact that they represent "pure' formations (of some size?). I had to significantly increase the cost and performance characteristics of the infantry in order for them to realize their importance/role in the game. In reality, at this level there would be no towed AT guns and only heavy (=>75mm) AA guns, no mortars, infantry guns, because their Company/battery/battalion
would have their platoons/sections detached to regiments. Maybe infantry "units" should be allowed to attach these AT, AA, IG guns giving them increased
performance characteristics. I did create artillery regiments that were combinations of different size cannons based on actual TO&Es. Also, sizing hex
diameter to regimental (3 battalion frontage) of 2 miles/3+ kilometers fits artillery ranges.

Concerning Aircraft versus Antiaircraft Artillery (AAA): PC1 was terrible. Most air attacks can be resolved into 3 altitude regimes- Medium and High level (strategic), over 20,000 ft, string/stick bombing, against large area targets; low level (tactical), under 10,000 ft, salvo (near simultaneous) release of bombs/depth charges at point or small area targets; and low to very low (attack), maneuvering under 6,000 to 300 ft, with salvo/skip bomb(s)/torpedo/mines or strafing at point targets.
AAA generally also came in 3 regimes meant to optimize their capability for a given type air attack: Only the heavy guns (=>75mm) could reach the high
altitude bombers (typically 4 or more engine A/C), they were also even more effective against medium altitude (typically 2 or 3 engine A/C) however, with their slow rate of fire and reaction/tracking they were poor at engaging low and very low attack(typically 1 or 2 engine A/C); medium AAA (37-57mm)
were effective against medium altitude targets and even more lethal against low LEVEL targets but they too had reduced performance versus maneuvering
attack A/C; light AAA (=<25mm) were the most effective against low altitude A/C due to their high rate of fire and quick reaction/tracking.
On a scale of 1-10: I would give heavy AAA a 7 versus high, 10 versus medium, and 1 versus low; medium AAA a 4 versus medium, 8 versus low LEVEL and
4 versus low MANEUVERING; light AAA a 4 versus low level, 10 versus low maneuvering.
NOTE: Each of these AAA should receive a half- again attack bonus if the AAA gun is the intended target i.e., when firing in self defense.

Implement some of the classic maps from Panzer General 2 like the Spanish Civil War and Dunkirk.

Overrun ability to tanks.

I would like to see more of the less known fights on the Eastern front. As an example, I was reading about the battles with Army Group Center from January 41 through the withdrawal in March 43. There were a series of Red Army operations to eliminate the salient around Rzhev for 15 months after the Soviet counterattack at Moscow. There were Stalingrad size casualties on both sides. The most notable was operation Mars, the twin of operation Uranus at Stalingrad and a failure for Zhukov.

We've all know the usual paths Panzer General and Panzer Corps for fighting on the Eastern front and obviously they need to remain but there should be some series of branches for the brutal but little known fights that often had a direct affect on the out come of the war. As with the Rzhev fights, they prevented a number of divisions ready to be transferred to Army Group South in early Fall '42. I'm sure the 6th Army could have found a use for them, say maybe on the flanks?

Overrun ability to tanks.[/quote]


I think "overrun" by tanks is misunderstood. Tanks and tanks with mech infantry still use this tactic today, but with two different intended outcomes:
-1st, to simply drive through/over the enemy's position to continue penetrating deeper into their rear area- leaving the enemy to be "mopped up" by
follow on forces.
-2nd, to have the tanks drive through/over the enemy's position screening the follow on APCs/halftracks to again obtain a standoff from the enemy
where the mech infantry would then dismount and assault the enemy from their rear.
The Germans used these tactics quite successfully in the early stages of the war when hand held AT weapons were not so prolific.

This points to the single BIGGEST mistreatment of infantry in virtually every wargame: Entrenched/sub-terrainian infantry can not be eliminated
by direct stand off fire! The only "efficient" solution to digging them out of their trenches is to use "other INFANTRY (that can approach the trench
lines and fire down into them). Air burst artillery (timed/proximity fuse shells) and mech flamethrowers can also inflict casualties, but for the most
part standoff weapons can only assist in suppressing them.

AceDuceTrey wrote:I think "overrun" by tanks is misunderstood.

The way it worked in PG2 was nearly perfect.
Tanks could only only overrun weakened units, spent ammo , but kept some movement (similar to a recon unit).

impar wrote:

AceDuceTrey wrote:I think "overrun" by tanks is misunderstood.

The way it worked in PG2 was nearly perfect.
Tanks could only only overrun weakened units, spent ammo , but kept some movement (similar to a recon unit).

Yes, but this would really only work when the infantry are exposed and ABOVE ground.

1. Ironman mode
2. More control over aux units (placement and upgrades before scenario starts)
3. Greater undo control
4. Related to 3, finger spasm detection/debouncing
5. No slow XP rate difficulty, just not fun in any way

Meaningful impact from battle result:

Dash to the wire comes to mind, 'Congratulation on your decisive victory, now lets flee!'. It's disappointing to act out a battle only to realise there it doesn't impact anything down the line.
-Branching paths are good, a decisive victory could lead to a harder battle with bigger stake or a slightly easier follow-up battle. The opposite could be true for a marginal victory if the 'historical path' expect a decisive victory.

For example in Gazala, DV give you a choice between Malta and Alam Halfa. Malta loops back in Alam Halfa, there is no difference between the Alam Halfa right away or doing it after Malta. It would be better if you go right away you face a easier battle (less enemy units and/or more turn to complete map) if you go to Malta, then Alam Halfa is harder but, provided you won Malta, you have more resource to tackle it (which might make it easier).

A Marginal Victory would get you a standard Alam Halfa.