What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

A new story begins...
The sequel to a real classic: Panzer Corps is back!

Moderator: Panzer Corps 2 Moderators

econ21
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:50 am

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by econ21 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:35 am

boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
In fairness I never finished the vanilla campaign in PzC and would have shelved it had the Grand Campaign not come along. But as it is now I'd rather replay that for the 10th(?) time than continue spending time on it's successor.
I have a similar view to you about PzC - the vanilla campaign was just serviceable: I used cheat codes to unlock the Rommel etc difficulty levels. But the Grand Campaign is a work of beauty with incredible replay value.

I haven't got so far with PzC2 as you, just about to start Paris. (Ironically, after Kursk is often where I stop with the GC: the larger scenarios get so exhausting and even PzC units are fragile when faced with massive Soviet armor formations). On balance, I'd say the mechanics are an improvement on PzC, although I agree about unit fragility: I would prefer a bit lower lethality. Early war PzC units were quite robust. But if the 1940 French army can hit my PzC2 units so hard, goodness knows what the late War Soviets will do. (If lethality is too high, you get punished very hard for a small mistake and that makes the game not fun to me, encouraging reloading). I like encirclement and overruns a lot, and think the changes to entrenchment make sense. I like the core slots thing: I'm fielding close to two historical panzer division in composition, finding the AT and AD worth deploying given they only take up one slot. Heroes are just fun to me, adding some character to units and nice RNG rewards, and the award system adds to unit progression (to me the core appeal of PG type games is husbanding and developing your core).

For graphic/UI, I agree with you and to be honest I prefer PzC. I still feel I am fighting the UI to play the game and the jumping/drunken feel I get from scrolling around outweighs any improvement in eye candy.

On impressive thing about PzC is how much content was created after the vanilla game. That was why I was willing to buy PzC2 without much thought - happy to support this work.

Rudankort
FlashBack Games
FlashBack Games
Posts: 3579
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Rudankort » Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:51 am

boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
At Kursk at the moment and rapidly losing interest in the game.
Always nice to see a PzC beta veteran, even when he does not have a single positive thing to say about the new game. At least, I hope that this time around you won't feel that Kursk map is too small. :)
boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
If you thought PG2 was better than the original you'll find that the change from PzC to PzC2 is fairly similar.
In some ways, I can see why you would feel like this, but I think that many things remained closer to the original PG, like bigger maps, more units, larger scale of battles etc.
boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
Interface - a big negative - everything for PzC was grouped to a single side meaning you didn't have to hunt for information.
Just out of curiosity - do you have the same problem with all other games using similar layout, like Civ series?
boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
Heroes - one of the "features" from PG2 that I'm not a fan to see make a comeback are gimmicky heroes granting magical abilities.
Fortunately, you only need to untick one checkbox and all those nasty heroes will go away. ;)
boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
Combat - feels like it happens too fast - ie units are too fragile. This means gambling is punished far more than rewarded leading to boring set piece play.
It's interesting that you feel this way, because 50% base accuracy creates a hard limit on damage which did not exist in PzC.
boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
Recon bonus and AT support I'm on the fence about - Really I would have preferred larger maps with randomized enemy locations to make recon more valuable in it's intended role rather than as a banner.
I believe that recons are still useful in their primary role, but combat bonus is a nice extra.
boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
Likewise AT units - on map support - not sure. Maybe representing them and light AA units as attachments (a la People's General) might have been a better approach. It would give more options to customize individual units by assigning and upgrading component parts rather than cluttering up the map with mono purpose support units.
I would argue that interaction of units and relative positioning of them on the battlefield is more interesting tactically.
boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
Entrenchment seems to matter much less.
Once again, it's interesting that you feel like this when effects from entrenchment are pretty significant, plus you can no longer reduce a unit below base entrenchment. Granted, there are more tools to reduce entrenchment faster in the new game, but if you miss slower entrenchment reduction from the prequel, just take the "trench slog" general trait.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 7092
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Kerensky » Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:48 am

Considering the vast majority of our players are not returning veterans, but overwhelmingly fresh faces... I think starting out with complexity or size on par with Grand Campaign would have been a mistake. The base game needed a reset in complexity closer to Vanilla PzC, to not fluster new players. Who, as you can see from the various posts on both forums, are sometimes struggling with the increase in complexity and information the game has on offer.

Panzer Corps 2 base campaign did a excellent job as an entry point into the game. We'll see if future content can, once again, take it to a new level. Better than base game, and better than old game GC. There are many more interesting things I can do with all these fancy scripts. Check out Defenders of the Reich for a taste of a proper next generation map. :wink:

OxygeneIV
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:48 am

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by OxygeneIV » Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:49 am

Hi! After 40 hours playing I love the new mechanics. The graphics are beautiful but to confusing. I tried the strategic map. It's great. But i need the unit's name "in" the counter. Like this:
Attachments
4.jpg
4.jpg (237.19 KiB) Viewed 1366 times

Nalikill
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:19 am

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Nalikill » Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:23 pm

Kerensky wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:29 am
I like it for more reasons than can count, as documented in the sum total of my all posts.

Yet I dislike it for one, single reason.

Panzer Corps 2 did to original Panzer Corps what X-Com EU and X-Com2 did to original X-Com. After playing the modern versions, I just can't go back anymore. It's too much more advanced in terms of gameplay, and looks so much prettier. Free mouse wheel zoom + repainting unit skins? Sign me up, customization is awesome. Sherman swarms actually being able to defeat heavy tanks via encirclement mechanics? Tanks with overrun? Hell yes give me. Yes, Panzer Corps has its astounding wealth of content, especially Grand Campaign... but I'm sure Panzer Corps 2 will get there soon enough. :)
econ21 wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 5:38 am
I loved Panzer General and Panzer Corps (especially the Grand Campaign) to bits. What do people who feel likewise think of Panzer Corps 2?

I've watched some videos about the innovations - over-runs and encirclement sound fun. I don't particularly care about 3D graphics or whatever. (Panzer General 3D was about the only General series game I did not take to.)

One thing I am curious about is whether the scale of the game has changed in anyway. I read a comment that it had, rather like the scale changed from PG to PG2, but from what I've seen, I am not sure that's true. Is the game still ambiguous about what a unit represents (I guess that is inevitable with this kind of game)? How big is your core at the start in 1939 and at the end in 1945?

One of the most fun things for me about Panzer Corps - especially the Grand Campaign - was trying to field historical divisions or proportions of units. Is this possible/encouraged in PzCorps 2? It seemed one of the challenges of the Grand Campaign was knowing whether to balance the game for players with a ton of big cats, or a more historical unit composition. (I got on fine up to about 1943 with the latter, then - as Kerensky put it - started getting the historical results with it!).

Thanks for any insights.
I'm always glad to see a fan of the Grand Campaign.

The scale of Panzer Corps 2 campaign I would argue is somewhere halfway between Panzer Corps original, which is almost fully strategic with it's 1 map = 1 country scale, and Panzer Corps Grand Campaign, which is almost fully tactical where 1 map could potentially equal as small as a single city.

There's definitely way more, and way better, Vanilla level content in Panzer Corps 2 over Panzer Corps. But Grand Campaign is Grand Campaign, there is no comparison to that monstrosity. :mrgreen:
I love the way that the KV-1, KV-2, and earlier on the Char B-1 and Matilda feel like absolute unkillable monsters. You have to encircle them and if you can't encircle them completely with a 6-unit encirclement, then you have to beat them down over the course of a couple of turns.

The scale is definitely widely varying... sometimes almost frustratingly so. In Stalingrad for example, the city is so huge your strat bombers can't cover the whole thing from an airfield in the center of the city. The next mission Stalingrad - that whole battlefield you were just fighting over - is just a few hexes on a much larger map. I appreciate the battles where you "scale things down", but it would be nice if the air in particular had a movement buff on these maps to represent the fact that this was so scaled down -e.g., "Small scale battle - this battle is modeling an intense fight over a smaller amount of territory so air units can move to any hex on the map and ignore their normal range"

boredatwork
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by boredatwork » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:08 pm

Rudankort wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:51 am
Always nice to see a PzC beta veteran, even when he does not have a single positive thing to say about the new game. At least, I hope that this time around you won't feel that Kursk map is too small. :)
Hello! Yes I've been away from the forums for a long time - much less opportunity to chat as a stone mason than when I was bored at work as a graphic designer.

Read my post, I said MORE than 1 positive thing! :P Graphics look nice! Variable core slot cost was a positive improvement! Aircraft could potentially be a good change with a slight tweak to how they behave! And yes vanilla kursk is a vast improvement over PzC vanilla Kursk
In some ways, I can see why you would feel like this, but I think that many things remained closer to the original PG, like bigger maps, more units, larger scale of battles etc.
It's not so much the size of the battles - more of prettier graphics making gameplay less easy - For example in PG and PzC it was always easy to tell what type of terrain you were on by looking at it. With PG2 and PzC2 where terrain "bleeds" from one hex to another it's harder to tell if a given hex has enough buildings on it to qualify as a town or enough trees to qualify as a forest. Similarly the hills tend to blend into the background more. The static bonuses of PzC one were (with the exception of +1 move) were not particularly noticeable - but in the two sequels heroes have abilities which substantially alter the way a given unit interacts with the rules.
Just out of curiosity - do you have the same problem with all other games using similar layout, like Civ series?
Good question. I've played alot of Starcraft2 and Civ4 with similar interfaces without noticing either. If I was given the option of a PzC1 style interface for either would I have liked it better? In part I'll acknowledge that part of my problem has to do with an aversion to change.

But I feel that even if successful in other games, as implemented the layout is falling short in PzC2. In part I think it's distracting that the UI continually redesigns itself. For example:

the mini map proportions change depending on the dimensions of the scenario, pushing the right bank of buttons up or down.

The "selected" info panel only appears when you have something selected. The "mouse over" info panel jumps from the left corner of the screen, to the mid point or even father depending on how many panels are open next to it. The vertical size of those panels changes depending on whether or not there's a unit or named terrain feature in the hex. The "picture shield" projects above the line of the data box. If this was pushed to the sides of the screen it wouldn't be an issue but it jumps around with the panels. Also if I have a unit selected and mouse over another unit it only shows me the details of the unit I'm mousing over, not the underlying terrain - I have to deselect the unit to free up both windows so one will show me the other unit and the other can tell me if it's standing on enough buildings to qualify as a town or not.

In PzC opening the deployment list or supplementary stats panel left the rest of the UI in exactly the same place - here it pushes elements over to make room for it.

In Civ yes the buttons were distributed around the screen, but I thought the buttons were better grouped by function. When you're moving units everything you need is bottom center allong with the "end turn" button. In PzC2 you have the undo, minimap, air/ground toggle, next/last, and sleep buttons on one side, and the replacement, transport, and switch buttons on the other, and the end turn button in yet another corner.

TBH I would have preferred a FIXED bottom console with minimap on one side, the bulk of the buttons on the other, and two fixed info panels in the middle. Or given the prevalence of widescreen monitors, everything in a fixed location to one side leaving the bulk of the window unencumbered with UI... like PzC...

The mission overview panel is HUGE for the amount of information it displays and defaults to "on". Yet with all that space it could have listed the weather in text form. Indeed it should have been under the turn counter since it relays related information.

While they need to be visible to achieve their function, IMO the strength plates visually dominate the game. They, especially the ones for Core units attempt to show too much information within the frame, making them too big. At least with PzC the "hasn't moved/hasn't fired" dots were outside the frame. Similarly the contrast with the palette chosen is too jarring. I suspect that part of the visual issues people are having is a result of that contrast - trying to distinguish green/grey units against green/grey background when there's strength plates screaming LOOK AT ME. Compare with PG/PzC for name plates that are functional but harmonious with the rest of the game. Same with objective hexes, combat odds, etc.

Instead of a single unit list showing all units, there are 3 lists - deployed, undeployed, reserve - this seems unnecessarily clunky. Why can't units be on a single list with visual modifiers showing if they're deployed (big green check mark) or in reserve (red X)? During deployment if I pick a unit up from the map it doesn't automatically select that unit for redeployment. If all my units are deployed it automatically moves me to the unit list. But if I pick one up I then have to manually go back into the un-deployed list to find it?
Fortunately, you only need to untick one checkbox and all those nasty heroes will go away. ;)
Where is this mythical checkbox? Regardless aren't the campaigns being balanced around players having the bonuses from these heroes? Much like PzC campaigns were balanced around players having an abundance of high quality armor?
boredatwork wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:31 am
Combat - feels like it happens too fast - ie units are too fragile. This means gambling is punished far more than rewarded leading to boring set piece play.
It's interesting that you feel this way, because 50% base accuracy creates a hard limit on damage which did not exist in PzC.
When I say combat happens too fast I'm referring to the way multiple units can ignore everything else to gang up on a single unit and kill it in one turn. In a SC or Civ style game where you using generic units who cares. But in an RPG style game being likely to lose a unit because you were a bit daring (as opposed to reckless) is frustrating to no end and leads to slow methodical gameplay - never advancing until you're ready to do so with overwhelming firepower.

This was a problem of PzC as well and for a good discussion of what could have been done differently this time around see this thread from 2012: viewtopic.php?f=121&t=38306

As I suggested back then (after pestering you to get reform units into the game in the first place) making the death penalty less severe would allow you to take the chains off the AI to make it more challenging and kill 15-25% or more of a players units per game without necessarily compromising their ab ility to complete the campaign as a whole. Deducter summed up my idea nicely:
deducter wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:21 am
The more I think about it the more I agree that integrating "reform units" into the game, especially for very long content like the GCs, is the solution to a lot of the problems that players are having. Right now the penalty for a unit ending at 1 str and a unit destroyed is too great. This is an arbitrary distinction and IMO not interesting in a game of this nature, not to mention very frustrating for so many players. I think massively reducing the penalty for losing a unit, but making it so that losses are to be expected for a scenario makes so much more sense.
This is essentially how I've been playing PzC the last 8? years. Cranking up the AI strength to make it challenging - but using reform units and the cheat codes to rebuild the occasional core losses, with a modest penalty to their experience. I would have loved if this concept could have been extended to the game as a whole so 100% and 90% casualties had proportional impact on game play which currently they don't.

I would have gone further and suggested that instead of making experience something specific to units, instead make it a shared resource across the force as a whole - make experience quicker to gain, but get rid of elite replacements and instead maintain finite pools of different star replacement points. Charge prestige for equipment, choose which pool to draw experience from. 0 star points would be infinite but the others would be much more limited - a trickle based on a % of str ength lost in previous games to represent wounded returning to service and/or strength points removed from existing units to be replaced by green units. Thus you could rebuild a unit as a green unit, or rebuild it as an elite unit by having other elite units give up some of their elite strength points and diluting their experience in the process.
I believe that recons are still useful in their primary role, but combat bonus is a nice extra.
For the first play through yes, but on replays their value diminishes - if I know I'm always going to run into this force here then I have less of a need to scout the unknown. Whereas if the enemy forces had been more random in timing and composition then every game they could have been valuable. I'm not sure if the combat bonus in the long run is that valuable either - for the cost (in slots) I could buy an extra artillery or AT.
I would argue that interaction of units and relative positioning of them on the battlefield is more interesting tactically.
Potentially - however the more effective support units are at supporting, the more strong defensive combinations are thus reducing offense to a slogging match of artillery.
Once again, it's interesting that you feel like this when effects from entrenchment are pretty significant, plus you can no longer reduce a unit below base entrenchment. Granted, there are more tools to reduce entrenchment faster in the new game, but if you miss slower entrenchment reduction from the prequel, just take the "trench slog" general trait.
This could be a matter of getting used to the new system - but it seems like units retreat too easily. Whereas before as long as a unit was still entrenched it would hold it's position, now it seems too easy to force units from what, in PzC, would have been a strong defensive line.

nexusno2000
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by nexusno2000 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:39 pm

In PC1 those retreating units world be dead, blasted by artillery and planes and tanks.
Green Knight
https://www.youtube.com/c/GreenKnight2001

boredatwork
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by boredatwork » Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:17 pm

Where as in PzC2 those units run behind supporting units, allowing the supporting units to get blasted by infantry and tank, then still get destroyed by over-run doing alot less damage to the enemy in the process...

Mordan
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:26 am

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Mordan » Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:39 pm

comradep wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:32 am

Experience isn't as important as it was in Panzer Corps, as Overstrength is no longer tied to the number of stars and accuracy bonuses can also be gained through recon units. The only benefit you can't gain through other means is is the enemy penalty to accuracy when it has less experience.
Yet experience is everything.. at work, at war, in bed..

green units just don't know what to expect.

econ21
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:50 am

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by econ21 » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:00 am

comradep wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:32 am

Experience isn't as important as it was in Panzer Corps, as Overstrength is no longer tied to the number of stars and accuracy bonuses can also be gained through recon units. The only benefit you can't gain through other means is is the enemy penalty to accuracy when it has less experience.
But isn't 1 star more accuracy? Is it 5%? That's non-trivial - a 5 star unit would do 25% more damage than a green one. It's not overpowered, but it's worth having. Your "gain through other means" isn't that relevant - veteran units can also use those other means.

Also experience - not experience as XP but experience in the broader sense of a unit that has fought through you for a lot of the campaign - is tied to awards - I haven't played long enough to know, but they could stack up.

EDIT: I listened to TheEdmon's Youtube guide to general traits:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1bdngs91YQ
He says an extra star gives you 8 percentage points more accuracy. So if you have 50% base chance to hit, an extra star increases lethality by 16%. (58-50)/50 = 0.16.

He also talks about 3% more defence from a star = reduces enemy chance to hit by 3 percentage points? 47% vs 50%? Again as a proportion, this is 6%.

This benefits from experience sound reasonable: significant but not over-powered.

comradep
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:47 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by comradep » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:22 pm

But isn't 1 star more accuracy? Is it 5%? That's non-trivial - a 5 star unit would do 25% more damage than a green one. It's not overpowered, but it's worth having. Your "gain through other means" isn't that relevant - veteran units can also use those other means.

Also experience - not experience as XP but experience in the broader sense of a unit that has fought through you for a lot of the campaign - is tied to awards - I haven't played long enough to know, but they could stack up.
But unlike previous games, that accuracy bonus/enemy accuracy penalty is "it" as far as benefits from higher experience are concerned. There's no initiative bonus, no changes to attack/defence stats, there's no mechanic where each star increases the maximum overstrength points by 1.

It just doesn't seem to be that important compared to earlier PG/PC games.

Awards are a separate mechanic not tied to experience. If you keep using green replacements, you'll still have the award bonuses.

nexusno2000
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by nexusno2000 » Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:32 pm

econ21 wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:00 am
comradep wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:32 am

Experience isn't as important as it was in Panzer Corps, as Overstrength is no longer tied to the number of stars and accuracy bonuses can also be gained through recon units. The only benefit you can't gain through other means is is the enemy penalty to accuracy when it has less experience.
But isn't 1 star more accuracy? Is it 5%? That's non-trivial - a 5 star unit would do 25% more damage than a green one. It's not overpowered, but it's worth having. Your "gain through other means" isn't that relevant - veteran units can also use those other means.

Also experience - not experience as XP but experience in the broader sense of a unit that has fought through you for a lot of the campaign - is tied to awards - I haven't played long enough to know, but they could stack up.

EDIT: I listened to TheEdmon's Youtube guide to general traits:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1bdngs91YQ
He says an extra star gives you 8 percentage points more accuracy. So if you have 50% base chance to hit, an extra star increases lethality by 16%. (58-50)/50 = 0.16.

He also talks about 3% more defence from a star = reduces enemy chance to hit by 3 percentage points? 47% vs 50%? Again as a proportion, this is 6%.

This benefits from experience sound reasonable: significant but not over-powered.
5 stars VS 0 stars

90% accuracy VS 35% accuracy

So the difference in damage is huge.

The best example is maybe RN VS KM in English Channel.

KM is inexperienced, RN has lots of stars. KM gets creamed unless you compensate.
Green Knight
https://www.youtube.com/c/GreenKnight2001

o_t_d_x
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:39 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by o_t_d_x » Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:22 pm

Mordan wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:39 pm
comradep wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:32 am

Experience isn't as important as it was in Panzer Corps, as Overstrength is no longer tied to the number of stars and accuracy bonuses can also be gained through recon units. The only benefit you can't gain through other means is is the enemy penalty to accuracy when it has less experience.
Yet experience is everything.. at work, at war, in bed..

green units just don't know what to expect.
One hour ago my entrenched 5 Star Pioneers (Moscow 43) completly killed 2 scouts and an unexperienced Infantry, with nearly no losses. Even without ambush they kill 9 and loose zero often. So yes, experience matters a lot.

comradep
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:47 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by comradep » Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:45 pm

Those are both examples of 5 star units, the highest experience level, dealing with units with few or 0 stars. You'd expect a pronounced effect in those cases, but also mostly at that level.

It's the intermediate levels where I don't really see much benefit. 2 stars gives about the same performance as an adjacent recon unit with Deep Recon or 2 stars, and slightly lower losses.

Compared to a 0.5/1 point stat upgrade per star in PC, that might not be a good deal.

Lifever
Panzer Corps World Champion
Panzer Corps World Champion
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:35 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Lifever » Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:00 pm

Kerensky wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:48 am
Considering the vast majority of our players are not returning veterans, but overwhelmingly fresh faces... I think starting out with complexity or size on par with Grand Campaign would have been a mistake. The base game needed a reset in complexity closer to Vanilla PzC, to not fluster new players.
That's a very sensitive statement - easy to overlook
It's also smart to go that route.

Veteran players have nowhere to run
So everything that appeals to new players makes sense.

Now the real objective is appeal to new players via a multiplayer platform.
This is where nobody can look away if all the boxes are checked.

Mordan
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:26 am

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Mordan » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:00 pm

Lifever wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:00 pm
Kerensky wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:48 am
Considering the vast majority of our players are not returning veterans, but overwhelmingly fresh faces... I think starting out with complexity or size on par with Grand Campaign would have been a mistake. The base game needed a reset in complexity closer to Vanilla PzC, to not fluster new players.
That's a very sensitive statement - easy to overlook
It's also smart to go that route.

Veteran players have nowhere to run
So everything that appeals to new players makes sense.

Now the real objective is appeal to new players via a multiplayer platform.
This is where nobody can look away if all the boxes are checked.
i played against a player.. we decided to rematch. None of us remember the names of each other. Impossible to find each other again. No friend list. Not even a finished game list like Pzc1. The patch is better than nothing.. but still no completed games list.. no way to put a description.. like noobs.. very good players only.. etc etc.

Panzer Corps could poach players from World of Tanks.. but not with this level of MP support.

Lifever
Panzer Corps World Champion
Panzer Corps World Champion
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:35 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Lifever » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:44 pm

Mordan wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:00 pm
None of us remember the names of each other.
Sound like some of the best days in life.

---

MP lobby functions of early starcraft 1 battlenet would be a good starting point.
Simple ranking sys, W/L-record, add friend, ...
Nothing automated - basic manual matchmaking that makes sense and is documented.

Documentation of a players history is pretty important. Virtual accomplishments drive the entire gaming industry...

The perceived status of a player tells a story - the same instant we see a name and W/L record.
Maybe he changes his objective from "I want to win..." to "I want him to lose some units."
Then he goes on to tell his friends about the encounter with some crazy Russian pro..
A story is told... a story is listened to... people gather around based on the story.
They want to write their own.

Works the same way since the stone age

Story - Emotion - Success
The most simple story

At this moment the developers probably have other stories on their plate.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 7092
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Kerensky » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:54 pm

If you're looking for a multiplayer community, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to find them in game anymore. Forums, discord, and steam are way more advanced than anything they could hope to implement in game (in every single game that ever gets made). These are dedicated places for communication, friending, and arranging matches. How and why would any game dev take the time to develop more systems than these dedicated applications who's sole purpose is to handle these systems?

Personally, I'm glad we got in game chat. It's exactly what is needed on the fundamental level. If you want to go further, there are ample the resources outside of the game.

Lifever
Panzer Corps World Champion
Panzer Corps World Champion
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:35 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by Lifever » Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:53 pm

We agree on the in game chat.

You think in terms of the usual practice.

We got to think of the point in time the multiplayer mainstream was 20 years ago... before it took off.
When the strategy genre started to lose its grip.
There are foundations to be laid to take the next step.

Turn based genre has a different structure
Yet there is a success path for every structure.
Even if the correct elements are in place - it still needs that foundation

Besides
There are a lot of new players around.
They all know where to find a community? They want to know?
What if someone just wants to play the game and know who he is facing off against?
What about the step between "is this fun?" and searching for a community?

New players --- big gap --- staying players
New wave coming in... big gap, big missed o

mwscuba
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:07 pm

Re: What do Panzer Corps veterans feel about PzC2?

Post by mwscuba » Mon Mar 30, 2020 11:02 pm

I like the revised game mechanics. But I also liked the simple graphics, much faster game play and the iOS compatibility (iPad) of PC1

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps 2”