Slitherine

Kerensky wrote:I wouldn't move it. I think people, especially newcomers, are intimidated by monster sized threads. They don't want to participate in a discussion that has gone on for many pages because they don't want to read it all. And if they do reply to it, they probably haven't read all the back pages they're just adding their input/reply to the first few posts. Megathreads for things like bug hunting and tracking are great. Less great for discussion. I'd leave this here, and let the stuff inside the Panzer Corps 2 forum grow naturally.

Yes, I tend to agree.

Kerensky wrote:Besides, I'm pretty sure even that Panzer Corps 2 forum is temporary isn't it? Is Panzer Corps 2 really only going to exist as a forum as a subsection of Panzer Corps? I dunno, that's an organizational question I suppose. Looks good to be part of the massive Panzer Corps activity, but I imagine this will get hugely cluttered and confusing around Panzer Corps 2 launch time.

The original plan was to move Panzer Corps 2 forum from inside here to top level once the game releases. I'm not sure if that's exactly what will happen, we shall see.

can i voulnteer to be a game tester?
i have +2400 hours of pnazer corps 1 on steam and +400 hours on the version i bought from the website.

My two cents is that the game is more fun when you can use a diverse mix of units, and PC does not give enough incentive to do that. The soft cap tries to coerce you into using a more diverse mix of units (e.g. you can't afford all Tiger 2's, have to mix in some Panzer IV's), but I think a better approach would be to incentivize use of those units, instead of forcing their use as a penalty. There are a few ways to do this:

1. More use of the switch button. For example, P-38's were used in a photographic recon role. Make the P-38 (or other planes) switchable when over an airfield from a fighter to a recon plane. Similarly, switch a P-47 from a fighter to a tac bomber (lose escort ability, but gain high ground attack). Maybe HW Infantry could switch to a "soft" 1 range artillery to mimic offensive and defensive mortar fire. Allow mobile anti-air to switch to ground fire mode (weak defense with high soft attack, moderate hard attack, etc.) Give me a reason to use less/under-utilized units.

2. More "traits" or unique abilities. The U.S. 75mm Pack Howitzer M1 was so portable that it could be broken down and put on mules. That gun becomes a lot more useful if it comes with a base two movement ability, or maybe even an alpine move. The P-51 could be given an "escort" trait that boosts its air attack when escorting bombers. The oft-discussed defensive fire trait for towed AT (but maybe only when the attacking unit is adjacent to the towed AT itself). Maybe Shermans have a base strength of 12 or 13 (I'm tired of watching experienced German units one shot my tanks). Light tanks get recon move.

3. Use deployment "points" instead of deployment slots. This is more involved, but could work within limits. Say a scenario gives 10 deployment points. A PZ IV is 3 points, a Tiger I is 4 points, and a Tiger II is 5 points. That would give the option of deploying two PZ IV's and a Tiger I, or two Tiger II's. Might be difficult to balance, but seems like more of a logical extension of the current system. This would probably require a mix of points and slots, i.e. 30 points but no more than 20 slots.

1 and 2 can be done in PzC, without PzC 3D.

- weather effects on the screen of game
- Real line-of-sight(fog of war) influenced by the terrain(forest, moutain...) and the weather conditions

BigRedJuan wrote:My two cents is that the game is more fun when you can use a diverse mix of units, and PC does not give enough incentive to do that. The soft cap tries to coerce you into using a more diverse mix of units (e.g. you can't afford all Tiger 2's, have to mix in some Panzer IV's), but I think a better approach would be to incentivize use of those units, instead of forcing their use as a penalty. There are a few ways to do this:

1. More use of the switch button. For example, P-38's were used in a photographic recon role. Make the P-38 (or other planes) switchable when over an airfield from a fighter to a recon plane. Similarly, switch a P-47 from a fighter to a tac bomber (lose escort ability, but gain high ground attack). Maybe HW Infantry could switch to a "soft" 1 range artillery to mimic offensive and defensive mortar fire. Allow mobile anti-air to switch to ground fire mode (weak defense with high soft attack, moderate hard attack, etc.) Give me a reason to use less/under-utilized units.

2. More "traits" or unique abilities. The U.S. 75mm Pack Howitzer M1 was so portable that it could be broken down and put on mules. That gun becomes a lot more useful if it comes with a base two movement ability, or maybe even an alpine move. The P-51 could be given an "escort" trait that boosts its air attack when escorting bombers. The oft-discussed defensive fire trait for towed AT (but maybe only when the attacking unit is adjacent to the towed AT itself). Maybe Shermans have a base strength of 12 or 13 (I'm tired of watching experienced German units one shot my tanks). Light tanks get recon move.

3. Use deployment "points" instead of deployment slots. This is more involved, but could work within limits. Say a scenario gives 10 deployment points. A PZ IV is 3 points, a Tiger I is 4 points, and a Tiger II is 5 points. That would give the option of deploying two PZ IV's and a Tiger I, or two Tiger II's. Might be difficult to balance, but seems like more of a logical extension of the current system. This would probably require a mix of points and slots, i.e. 30 points but no more than 20 slots.

All of this is more important to me, than 3D graphics.
Panzer general is NOT a graphics game.
The part about recon plane seems really good and make it switchable at airfields.
I think heavy artillery should not be possible to move in forrest at all. Deploy near roads or railroads only. While smaller calibre like 75 could be all terrain.
A fuel system. Almost similar to points. Say you got 3000 fuel. Tigers use alot more than PzIV and so on.
Should also have a certian number of elite replacements and green replacements.
A supply system where you can supply near cities or depoes. Limited supplies behind enemy lines. Now if partizans cut off railroads in the back, then you lose all or some of the supply possibilities.
Infantry should be able to disembark from a train regardless of being in a city.
List could go on and on and all this should be fixed before 3D.

Completely agree. I don't play for graphics, I play because of the mechanics and tactics. Those are the things that make the game so wonderfully re-playable. 3D means nothing to me.

Rudankort wrote:

beb1331 wrote:Exactly Yrfin Panzercorps Civilization. Wars are not won only on the battlefield. It takes strategy with the resources needed to win a war. Civilization does it very well. On the other hand during conflict between nations there is no better than Panzercorps for the visual of the battle. Wow!

I actually think that the idea to combine Panzer Corps tactics with Civ-style gameplay might have great potential. But of course, such play mode should not be the only one. Maybe in a DLC, a few years after initial release, we could explore this direction.

Je suis partant

Aww. Does anyone know the movie Bedazzled?
It's a comedy film I really like. In it, Brendan Fraser gets to ask the devil him- or rather herself (played by Liz Hurley) to grant him wishes.
The wishes ARE indeed granted, however the devil masterfully twists them so that they end up being not QUITE what Elliot (Brendan's character) had in mind.

I couldn't help but think of this movie when I stumbled across the PzC2 forum and heard it will be a UT3 engine game. I even double checked to see if the news wasn't maybe posted on April 1st.
Ah well, at least we'll always have Paris ... err, at least PzC will remain here to play and mod.

rezaf wrote:I couldn't help but think of this movie when I stumbled across the PzC2 forum and heard it will be a UT3 engine game. I even double checked to see if the news wasn't maybe posted on April 1st.
Ah well, at least we'll always have Paris ... err, at least PzC will remain here to play and mod.

Have to agree with your overall point. This whole project could go horribly wrong. I'm trying to be optimistic though. In either case, we'll have to wait at least a year or so to find out.

Rudankort wrote:

beb1331 wrote:Exactly Yrfin Panzercorps Civilization. Wars are not won only on the battlefield. It takes strategy with the resources needed to win a war. Civilization does it very well. On the other hand during conflict between nations there is no better than Panzercorps for the visual of the battle. Wow!

I actually think that the idea to combine Panzer Corps tactics with Civ-style gameplay might have great potential. But of course, such play mode should not be the only one. Maybe in a DLC, a few years after initial release, we could explore this direction.

I think I have found something that you could be very used about my topic of combined PC and civilization consulted the following link http://www.freeciv.org/
This is a version of civilization open source including game engine. Yes the picture was older but can be redesigned like PC picture. Please give me your comments.

PzC and Civ- absolutely different games. It isn't necessary to mix them.
- What will if you mix a hedgehog with serpent ?
- Hank of a barbed wire.

All of these suggestions have already been made, therefore I am just casting my vote so that if anyone is actually keeping score and tallying up player/user wish list, the total goes up by 1

1) Ability to plot your unit's movement to avoid obvious ambush choke points
2) 4 player games or 2 co-op vs AI
3) In scenario ability to disband units reduced to 20% strength to recoup acquisition points and be able to reinforce other units.