Enemy units escaping across the map.

[gunnergoz]

I think a follow up move if an enemy unit is forced to retreat or destroyed would be a good addition anyway..

Yes I was going to mention an "advance after combat" option in my next post because it's frustrating throwing everything we've got at an enemy unit in say a city to force him to retreat, but because we can't advance into the vacated hex, him or one of his mates will simply waltz back in there during his turn, so we have to attack the city all over again on our next turn.
In most other board and computer wargames there's an "advance after combat" option which allows us to occupy the hex after kicking him out, and that's what PC2 needs too.

I disagree. If the player units used up all of their movement to get into attack position, then successfully attack, they should not automatically get to move into the combat-vacated hex should they defeat the enemy and the enemy is eliminated or retreats from the city. OTOH, if the player units have movement points left when they start the attack (say they were already in position, or they moved into attack position and have at least 1 MP left over when they attack, they should of course be able to move in to occupy the vacated hex.
IRL, attacks are either hasty or deliberate: hasty attacks come with little preparation and in the game are represented by a unit that used all its movement prior to attacking. Deliberate attacks in game terms are when a unit has movement points left when it attacks. Hasty attacks that use all the unit's movement points to reach the attack position, don't get the benefit of automatic advance into the vacated terrain.

[Kerensky]

IRL, attacks are either hasty or deliberate: hasty attacks come with little preparation and in the game are represented by a unit that used all its movement prior to attacking. Deliberate attacks in game terms are when a unit has movement points left when it attacks. Hasty attacks that use all the unit's movement points to reach the attack position, don't get the benefit of automatic advance into the vacated terrain.

Seems logical. And fits nicely into the idea of overrun. When attacks are so overwhelming, and resistance to them is so weak, the opportunity to continuing advancing, with any remaining movement but not free movement, is granted. Well said, gunnergoz.

[PoorOldSpike]

..Hasty attacks that use all the unit's movement points to reach the attack position, don't get the benefit of automatic advance into the vacated terrain.

Yes but it can be a hassle keeping track of movement point expenditure because I'm just a dumb wargamer not a bean counter..
That's why I suggested that if we kick an enemy out of a city or any other hex, one of our units that did the kicking should have the option of a free move into the vacated hex as a "bonus move" even if it has zero MP's left, because seeing the enemy hightail it would have given our boys an adrenaline shot and an energy boost to get in there..

PS- A word for the PC2 game designers and devs- please don't take our comments as criticisms, they're simply suggestions in the interest of healthy discussion and debate.
Even as it stands, PC2 is one of the best games I've seen in 37 years of board and computer wargaming..
How about it Oddball?

"Yeah man"..

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php? ... orum&f=134

[Dorky8]

But of course that was designed for campaigns.. not for MP games. PC2 is certainly more realistic for solo play. But its less fun for me in MP.

I bought the game to play MP not vs AI. All my criticisms are directed at the MP game, the AI game works fine.

Mordan you are absolutely correct. The game was created for the AI player and it works there. The game does not translate well to the MP platform, there are many attributes in PC2 that make MP a very poor experience.

I'm not confident much thought was given to the MP platform and there certainly doesn't seem to be an interest in listening to legitimate criticisms and improving it.

Another $40 wasted on a poor sequel.

[Horseman]

But of course that was designed for campaigns.. not for MP games. PC2 is certainly more realistic for solo play. But its less fun for me in MP.

I bought the game to play MP not vs AI. All my criticisms are directed at the MP game, the AI game works fine.

Mordan you are absolutely correct. The game was created for the AI player and it works there. The game does not translate well to the MP platform, there are many attributes in PC2 that make MP a very poor experience.

I'm not confident much thought was given to the MP platform and there certainly doesn't seem to be an interest in listening to legitimate criticisms and improving it.

Another $40 wasted on a poor sequel.

It's sad that you think that way. It's seems there's lots of other players that enjoy the MP aspect. But not every game can be for everyone.

Realistically a games rules needs to be consistant in SP and MP. They work fine in both IMO but like I already said not every game can suit every player.

EDIT: It's important to note - they are listening. There's a difference between not listening and not agreeing with proposed changes.

[Dorky8]

I wanted a game that was produced for MP veteran war gamers and it wasn't. Thats great for new players but not for me

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.

People are putting forth issues that they have with the game. They aren't trying to trash talk it they are trying to improve it. If the dev's disagree should say why not just give snarky answers.

You instantly lost all credibility when you complained that an outcome of an event is too reliable. Not everyone is going to enjoy wildly swinging RNG.

It's almost as if paratroopers, phase moving recon units, encirclement tactics, limited core slots, and limited prestige settings is intentionally designed at creating new fronts to fight on instead of having trying to break through the front of defensive AT/ARTY support triangle chokepoints.

I dunno, I find it quite clear and working excellently.

It's quite definitively laid out in this nicely produced clip, also available in the game's tutorial section.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VpeMgW ... =emb_title

What I really want to see is the 'paratroopers so OP they are map breaking' crowd to have a discussion with the 'paratroopers are the most worthless unit in the game' crowd.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1072040/ ... 886886166/

[Horseman]

I wanted a game that was produced for MP veteran war gamers and it wasn't. Thats great for new players but not for me

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.

People are putting forth issues that they have with the game. They aren't trying to trash talk it they are trying to improve it. If the dev's disagree should say why not just give snarky answers.

You instantly lost all credibility when you complained that an outcome of an event is too reliable. Not everyone is going to enjoy wildly swinging RNG.

It's almost as if paratroopers, phase moving recon units, encirclement tactics, limited core slots, and limited prestige settings is intentionally designed at creating new fronts to fight on instead of having trying to break through the front of defensive AT/ARTY support triangle chokepoints.

I dunno, I find it quite clear and working excellently.

It's quite definitively laid out in this nicely produced clip, also available in the game's tutorial section.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VpeMgW ... =emb_title

What I really want to see is the 'paratroopers so OP they are map breaking' crowd to have a discussion with the 'paratroopers are the most worthless unit in the game' crowd.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1072040/ ... 886886166/

Trying to improve it? More like trying to make it more how you would like it. Which might be an improvement for you but not for others. That's a subjective opinion, the devs will listen and will make changes on what they believe to be correct. Based on actual figures and facts and not just based on a small number of players not liking some thing.

Just so you know, I'm not a new player and yet I still think what they've made is great. Again it's subjective and not based on experience.

As for the snarky responses from Kerenskey?

Well there's a group of vocal players moaning para's are too strong and another group moaning they're too weak....Both groups can't be right? Can they?

And let's be fair, they're not really snarky, they're a humorous responses to inane complaints.

[Dorky8]

I questioned why the game used its ZOC methodology, thinking it was too strict. I included 3 ZOC approaches in war game construction and the attached article.

viewtopic.php?f=464&t=98109

All I needed was an explanation of the decision behind the ZOC methodology

I got this answer

I dunno, I find it quite clear and working excellently.

It's quite definitively laid out in this nicely produced clip, also available in the game's tutorial section.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VpeMgW ... =emb_title

So if you think I asked an inane question fine. It is very obvious to me that people like you that are big fans of almost every aspect of the game are treated nicely. I'm glad you like the game.

I think he was mad because I questioned why paratroopers have a limitless range. I guess another inane question.

[Horseman]

I questioned why the game used its ZOC methodology, thinking it was too strict. I included 3 ZOC approaches in war game construction and the attached article.

viewtopic.php?f=464&t=98109

All I needed was an explanation of the decision behind the ZOC methodology

I got this answer

I dunno, I find it quite clear and working excellently.

It's quite definitively laid out in this nicely produced clip, also available in the game's tutorial section.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VpeMgW ... =emb_title

So if you think I asked an inane question fine. It is very obvious to me that people like you that are big fans of almost every aspect of the game are treated nicely. I'm glad you like the game.

I think he was mad because I questioned why paratroopers have a limitless range. I guess another inane question.

It is an inane question- that answer is obvious. It's designed that way because that's how the designers wanted it to work to make paratroopers useful.

If they were treated the same as other aircraft and had a limited range then they'd either be useless (not enough range) or even more powerful (way to much range)

You feel like they can't be countered now because they can fly forever.....At least You can find them in the air and they can only fly so far per turn. If they worked like other aircraft and had too long range they could land almost anywhere from their base in 1 turn. Even harder to counter!

As it stands a lot of your questions have been answered and counters suggested. But you ignore all of that and continue to whine about the same things over and over because you don't like it. Everyone's patience has limits and I think Kerensky has been more than patient with advice and counter arguments.

Design decisions are just that and don't need explanations even if a player demands it. If someone is truly experienced and competent at wargames you learn to adapt to what The rules are for the game you're playing not demand they change to something you're more familiar with.

And there are aspects of the game I'm not 100% sold on. (Infantry CD being one at the moment) But instead of jumping in and saying "this is ridiculous" or "its unfair" or "i demand you tell me why you've done this" I'm attempting to engage in a reasonable discussion and seeing what other opinions are.

[Dorky8]

Yet yesterday you were unsure on my inane question of which ZOC was best and we still don't have an answer on why the ZOC methodology was used.

Gwaylare : Unfortunately I don't have a screenshot.

I now have two issues.

1) In the screenshot you show the Tiger is justified in being encircled. My issue is if there were units in the two Friendly hexes to the west the Tiger would still be encircled and I see that as a problem. I should have said units surrender easier not they don't retreat. I understand encirclements are often quickly remedied, but even for a turn they have significant consequences, mainly the next turns effectiveness (manual excerpt below). I'm just saying the ZOC shouldn't block supply (& create encirclement) if there is a friendly unit there.

2) My new concern is that in your example (it is my understanding) is if the two infantry units were one (1) strength and the Tiger was 15 strength it would still be encircled. There should be some limitation on smaller units (or differential) encircling.

From Manual

"Encirclements are marked on the map by a border enclosing all affected hexes, coloured to indicate what player’s units have been encircled. Units that have been encircled do not receive supplies of fuel and ammo at the start of the turn, and cannot receive replacements or upgrades of any type for as long as the encirclement remains. Each turn they remain encircled, they will suffer growing initiative and accuracy penalties, and accumulate more suppression every turn. Suppression does not reset at the beginning of a turn if the encirclement remains, even if caused by combat and not as a result of the encirclement itself, so breaking units out of encirclements should be a high priority if you do not wish to see your forces surrendering"

As to your 1st issue - I can go either way with that. I can see supply coming "through" units but I can equally see it working the way it does now. One of the questions would be what is the ground/unit scale? The PC series (just like PG) is very in the air on this. 1 unit =1 division then totally supply should be traceable through friendly units. If its 1 unit= 1 platoon then no way.

The 2nd issue is still a non issue. If those infantry were 1 strength the Tiger would have 0 problems breaking out so long as it has ammo left.

Questioning paratroopers having a LIMITLESS range is inane ok got it

[Horseman]

Yet yesterday you were unsure on my inane question of which ZOC was best and we still don't have an answer on why the ZOC methodology was used.

Gwaylare : Unfortunately I don't have a screenshot.

I now have two issues.

1) In the screenshot you show the Tiger is justified in being encircled. My issue is if there were units in the two Friendly hexes to the west the Tiger would still be encircled and I see that as a problem. I should have said units surrender easier not they don't retreat. I understand encirclements are often quickly remedied, but even for a turn they have significant consequences, mainly the next turns effectiveness (manual excerpt below). I'm just saying the ZOC shouldn't block supply (& create encirclement) if there is a friendly unit there.

2) My new concern is that in your example (it is my understanding) is if the two infantry units were one (1) strength and the Tiger was 15 strength it would still be encircled. There should be some limitation on smaller units (or differential) encircling.

From Manual

"Encirclements are marked on the map by a border enclosing all affected hexes, coloured to indicate what player’s units have been encircled. Units that have been encircled do not receive supplies of fuel and ammo at the start of the turn, and cannot receive replacements or upgrades of any type for as long as the encirclement remains. Each turn they remain encircled, they will suffer growing initiative and accuracy penalties, and accumulate more suppression every turn. Suppression does not reset at the beginning of a turn if the encirclement remains, even if caused by combat and not as a result of the encirclement itself, so breaking units out of encirclements should be a high priority if you do not wish to see your forces surrendering"

As to your 1st issue - I can go either way with that. I can see supply coming "through" units but I can equally see it working the way it does now. One of the questions would be what is the ground/unit scale? The PC series (just like PG) is very in the air on this. 1 unit =1 division then totally supply should be traceable through friendly units. If its 1 unit= 1 platoon then no way.

The 2nd issue is still a non issue. If those infantry were 1 strength the Tiger would have 0 problems breaking out so long as it has ammo left.

Questioning paratroopers having a LIMITLESS range is inane ok got it

See this is why people answer your questions with snarky replies. Because you just choose to ignore what's been said.

1) I'm not unsure which zoc method is best I just don't care either way which is used. Both can make sense in context depending on scale and as this game doesn't really have a set scale it's pure design decision. As long as my opponent has to follow the same rules it's fine.

2) yes asking repeatedly the same question expecting a different answer is inane. Para transports have unlimited range because it was a design decision.

3) anyone with half the war gaming experience that you claim to have would know how to counter "the problems" you keep moaning about. In fact several people have posted how to do just that but instead of taking it on-board you continue to moan that it's "unfair"

[Dorky8]

1) I'm not unsure which zoc method is best I just don't care either way which is used. Both can make sense in context depending on scale and as this game doesn't really have a set scale it's pure design decision. As long as my opponent has to follow the same rules it's fine.

See that's the question (1) I like you am unsure about and I do care. I think the game would be better served with different ZOC rules.

Once again when you are losing an argument don't resort to questioning some one's (who you don't know) gaming abilities and personal attacks. Its unbecoming.

I'm sure everyone is tired of our mindless dribble so I'll move on.

[Horseman]

1) I'm not unsure which zoc method is best I just don't care either way which is used. Both can make sense in context depending on scale and as this game doesn't really have a set scale it's pure design decision. As long as my opponent has to follow the same rules it's fine.

See that's the question (1) I like you am unsure about and I do care. I think the game would be better served with different ZOC rules.

Once again when you are losing an argument don't resort to questioning some one's (who you don't know) gaming abilities and personal attacks. Its unbecoming.

I'm sure everyone is tired of our mindless dribble so I'll move on.

Classic move from someone without something intelligent to say....I'm ending the conversation.

A reason to change the way zoc works is not because you don't understand it or because "It's unfair" I've yet to see a compelling argument from you to change anything. Just lots of whinging.

I think it's fair to say - if you dont like the game don't play it. Stop trying to get it changed to suit you. There are other games I'm sure more to your taste.

[Hemi]

1) I'm not unsure which zoc method is best I just don't care either way which is used. Both can make sense in context depending on scale and as this game doesn't really have a set scale it's pure design decision. As long as my opponent has to follow the same rules it's fine.

See that's the question (1) I like you am unsure about and I do care. I think the game would be better served with different ZOC rules.

Once again when you are losing an argument don't resort to questioning some one's (who you don't know) gaming abilities and personal attacks. Its unbecoming.

I'm sure everyone is tired of our mindless dribble so I'll move on.

The article you keep referring to doesn't advocate for one ZOC over another, it says in its conclusion to figure out the ZOC rules for your game and use them to your advantage. And when we say "we don't care" we really mean that what we really care about is understanding the rule and bending it to our advantage.

I get your passion for the game. I have it as well, and you do not see it here but in the beta test I had no issues in communicating when something didn't work.

The ZOC rules work fine for me, and what you haven't done is convince me why they don't

[Mordan]

about ZOC

i was surprised to learn that Overrun does not care about ZOC..

If you can move after attacking with overrun inside a ZOC, why can't you move inside a ZOC by default with tanks?

It does not make sense.

[Retributarr]

about ZOC

i was surprised to learn that Overrun does not care about ZOC..

If you can move after attacking with overrun inside a ZOC, why can't you move inside a ZOC by default with tanks?

It does not make sense.

Maybe... this might help to make more sense???.
Non Sequitur
In Latin, non sequitur means "it does not follow."
A deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure.

Non sequitur, in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not
follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true
or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection
between the premise and the conclusion.

[Kerensky]

As it stands a lot of your questions have been answered and counters suggested. But you ignore all of that and continue to whine about the same things over and over because you don't like it. Everyone's patience has limits and I think Kerensky has been more than patient with advice and counter arguments.

Ahh shucks, what a nice guy you are. By the way I've got those free DLC for you to download, as payment for your siding with the me. Err... I mean.... thank you for your totally voluntary and not at all paid for support.

[Dorky8]

I questioned why the game used its ZOC methodology, thinking it was too strict. I included 3 ZOC approaches in war game construction and the attached article.

viewtopic.php?f=464&t=98109

All I needed was an explanation of the decision behind the ZOC methodology

I got this answer

I dunno, I find it quite clear and working excellently.

It's quite definitively laid out in this nicely produced clip, also available in the game's tutorial section.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VpeMgW ... =emb_title

So if you think I asked an inane question fine. It is very obvious to me that people like you that are big fans of almost every aspect of the game are treated nicely. I'm glad you like the game.

I think he was mad because I questioned why paratroopers have a limitless range. I guess another inane question.

[Dorky8]

Golly gee Karensky your game is the greatest. No flaws at all,its the best. You're a genius.

[nexusno2000]

I think units get to retreat way too much in one turn. Sometimes it will take 4 or 5 of my units to kill one enemy unit as it will keep retreating, and I chase it across the map. Now I don't use mass attack as often due to my units needing to chase the enemy.

Normally I would dismiss your concerns, but I just finished Rzhev scenario, and the big challenge was retreating units - and healing. So much healing and retreats. If this is representative of the big scenarios I'm not going to bother. About as fun as watching paint dry.