Movement types and costs (PzC and PzC II)

[Yrfin]

by ThvN » 07 Jul 2014 21:31

Thoughts behind choosing movement types and costs

Amphibious

The most obviously absent type is Amphibious. It would be best if map design and terrain types are tailored for use with an amphibious movement type, so I haven’t experimented with it yet. Ideally, ‘Sea’ should be -200 (impassable) and ‘Shallow Sea’ maybe -100, so they could be launched away from the coast. The land movement costs could be based on tracked movement values.

Rivers and lakes are more difficult, but might be -50, Major rivers -100, as these units are very slow in water and usually take time to prepare for crossing larger bodies of water.

In my opinion, there isn’t really a ‘right or ‘wrong’ way, it all depends on what you want to achieve: some units required a lot of preparation to cross and were very clumsy (Sherman DD, Schwimmpanzer II), others were lighter vehicles that could cross small rivers without much preparation (like Soviet T-38 scout tanks or German Schwimmwagens).

Leg/Foot movement

One thing I dislike is the standard -50 cost for infantry in desert. This means any infantry unit can move two hexes in desert terrain, nullifying the primary advantage of light infantry units. For now I’ve set it to 1, and 1.5 for dunes.

Roads

I have tried to better represent the advantage of roads for movement, but instead of redoing all movement values for units I have decided to keep clear terrain as a benchmark for movement cost and give most movement types a discount for moving along roads.

I’ve put it at 0.8 for most units, so a tank with move 4 can move five hexes along a road and a tank with 5 move gets six hexes. The tilting points for 0.8 are 3 or less (no bonus) and 8 (2 move extra instead of 1). So any unit with move 4 through 7 will get a single extra movement point when on a road. Wheeled vehicles get a bigger movement boost when travelling on roads than tracked vehicles, but have bigger penalties off-road.

Marching infantry on the road gets a bigger bonus, because their base move is lower. I’m currently testing a value of 0.6, meaning HW infantry can move three and light infantry can move five hexes, even if they have move 4. This makes foot infantry more feasible, but I am not sure I like it yet.

Ideas for subtypes

So far I’ve split up several other movement types into subtypes because I wanted more flexibility. Testing and adjusting is still ongoing but I’ll give a few examples of my reasoning.

Towed movement subtypes

One of the obvious issues is the ‘towed’ movement type. In the base game, it is used for everything from small mountain/AT guns that could be manhandled easily, to massive siege guns that were practically immobile without using heavy equipment.

So I’ve split them into three different groups: one type for ‘pack’ guns that can be manhandled and are capable of slow movement through difficult terrain, even mountains. These pack guns usually get a base move stat of 2, similar to heavy infantry but most difficult terrain will cost all movement points. Roads give a small boost, because these wheeled guns can be moved easily across hard surfaces and sometimes had specialized equipment for the crew to tow it manually over greater distances.

The ‘medium’ towed category is basically the standard one, for medium guns that can be manhandled over very short distances. Realistically these could not be moved over longer distances without prime movers but for gameplay reasons I just assume such a unit does have some vehicles, just not enough to be considered motorized.

Another consideration is speed of redeployment. Some gun batteries are light enough to be quickly moved and set up to fire, so to represent this it these towed guns can fire and move in their turn, like in the base game. This medium category can still move through most terrain types, although any difficult conditions will limit movement.

The ‘heavy’ towed category is for guns that are basically impossible to move quickly and cannot be manhandled. For the same gameplay reasons as with medium guns, they can still move on their own on roads and good ground (clear hexes, cities, airports, etc.).

For this category, any moderately difficult terrain will require organic transports, because these guns will not be able to move unless the terrain conditions allow it. They will often not be able to provide direct support because sometimes they have to spend the AI turn mounted up to move even a single hex or risk lagging behind. So these guns require a bit more planning and use of terrain.

Using these three movement subtypes, I can emphasize the main advantages and disadvantages of light and heavy artillery guns in terms of movement. Couple this with different transport options and suddenly there is a lot more tactic involved than simply ‘click to attack and move to the next hex’.

Horse subtypes

I have made two types: one for horse riders (cavalry) and one for draught horses (horse transport). This prevents horse towed artillery from gaining very high mobility, because in reality it would be worse than motorized traction. The differences between the two horse types are very large when it is muddy, for example.

Naval subtypes

Another split is naval movement: here I have followed the unit classes of Capital Ships and Destroyers. While both categories can move freely across sea hexes, Capital Ships get slowed down by shallow seas, straits and ports. If these types are frozen it becomes even more difficult to move through them.
Destroyers have less trouble to move through these terrain types, and can even move on major rivers and lakes, but slowly. The already existing ‘River’ movement type is tweaked to complement these two naval types, to make three types of movement for water-based units.

More hair-splitting

My most recent test have been sets of subtypes of tracked movement. Some tanks were known for good mobility over certain types of terrain due to low ground pressure and excellent traction. Famous examples are the T-34, Churchill and Panther tanks. Other tanks bogged down more quickly, like Shermans and Panzer IVs.

The results are very subtle but I like this solution better than simply giving tracked units more movement point because they are good off-road. And with this system pure speed and cross-country mobility are no longer married together, which might make modding the unit movement stats a bit easier. Although, deciding if a tank should belong to a certain movement subtype might cause sleep loss instead.

So, if I am finally happy with my changes I’ll bring out my set of movement tables, but hopefully this little guide will make modding a little easier.
Thomas (ThvN)"


And my ideas about movement cost and types.
Test: New movement cost and types
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 47&t=76308

[KeldorKatarn]

I also have a few suggestions regarding Amphibious and Roads.

DD Tanks and Schwimmpanzers are one thing, if we want to be able to cover the pacific we certainly need the amphibibious to be able to simulate LVT vehicles, both personell carriers and gun tanks. Especially since the gun versions would actually initially fire at the beach while remaining in the water since they had better protection there. I don't think Panzer Corps currently has a way to make this happen unless you somehow switch a tank into a ship type or seomthing like that. I think switching is not the way to go here. That should work out of the box, that's what these things were all about. In fact switching probably makes for sense for DD tanks since they really needed some preparation so they couldn't do both in the same turn I feel. But the LVTs really should just be able to be in shallow water AND on land and the same turn.

Regarding roads I always felt Russia was missrepresented. Especially during the attack on Moscow when the mud appears the roads are still very useful. I feel that absolutely shouldn't be the case. THere's numerous historical accounts that state that in the mud period there just arent any roads anymore. All those roads were dirt roads that turned into pure mud during those weeks and were completely useless.

Maybe this could be represented by having 2 types of roads in the game. Fortified modern asphalt roads that stay perfectly usable no matter what the weather is (maybe less so in heavy snow) and dirt roads which basically vanish in Mud and become normal open terrain.

[Razz1]

Many Mods have multiple transport types including mine.

Breaking up movement type to light med and heavy would be great for PC2.

[guille1434]

Well... Nothing that has been posted here cannot be made with an imaginative use of the current PzCorps1 movement types/terrain type system, which I think still has a lot of potential. Except for some interesting details, like the idea of modeling dirt road and paved roads... So, just let's say that the system should be ported right into PzCorps2... I think game developers should provide just a solid, flexible base system for the various game aspects, let the modders do the work of detailing the rules in the measure they see as desirable, while the developers focus in more technically oriented subjects (good game concepts, releasing a stable piece of software, etc...).

Just my opinion.

[Ravihon]

Although I am basically of the opinion voiced by guille1434

.. I think game developers should provide just a solid, flexible base system for the various game aspects, let the modders do the work of detailing the rules in the measure they see as desirable, while the developers focus in more technically oriented subjects (good game concepts, releasing a stable piece of software, etc...).

, I would love to see some more options maybe tied to Engineers/Pioneers that would improve movement (e.g. bridges, roads, airstrips). Not sure if this is still in line with the PzC simplicity principle...but worth a thought imho. Otherwise I believe with a new approach to graphics, different terrain types might be an opportunity to address movement, this could be done in conjunction of Equipment type + movement type (Artillery + Horse vs Inf + Horse to address the differences).