Hello everyone,
Firstly I want to congratulate you guys for this game. However, I also have some criticism.
1. The Price is with 49.99$ too high for this game. I know that you want the best revenue for this title and perhaps this high prices proves you´re right. But for me as a customer I compare this title with my latest purchase:
- Starcraft 2: In my oppinion it offers a lot more for the same price. I don´t want to numerate its good points, because that would be comparing apples and pears. Just want to say that I was very satisfied with this game.
- The Hearts of Iron series: Also a very addictive titel focusing solely on the gameplay and not on graphics. In a way you can compare it with Panzer Corps. Just that it was a lot cheapers when first released...
Luckily I am not really short on money and can just buy everything game I really like but still you have to compare your purchases. (I hope I won`t regret the pre-order of Star wars: The old republic for 149,99 Euro xD)
2. I get the feeling that the game seems not really finished and had to be pushed out in a hurry to meet a date...
I totally miss unit descriptions or a tech tree. And I DID play the tutorial. Maybe I did miss some points. However just a few things that are not intuitive:
- How are Brückenpioniere used?!
- Gebirgsjäger with a transport vehicle seems lose their ability. A warning before you buy them cars? 0o
- Artilery rate of fire is not the same for every model. But I can´t see this anywhere before I buy or upgrade them. Just found out by testing it in battle. This is so wrong...
- Upgrades seems a little strange. Sometimes it cost me a bunch and sometimes it cost very little. A tech-tree would be very appreciated so you know what you should buy in the first place (I could not find this in the manual or in the library. Perhaps this is a feature, 'cause you didn´t know how the technology would advance in real war and so the new units should be a suprise!)
- What do the difficulty settings representing??? I started with the easiest difficulty just to notice a few chapters that AI troops are greatly reduced...
-> Totally sucks. Restart game with normal settings. Still quite easy after the first three maps. -> Restart on Field Marschall... hmm no changes? 0o
- Fighter counterattack just once and Artilery counterattack is limitless? Maybe it is logical but still writing it down won´t hurt...
- Strategical Bombers won´t get counterattacked by a lot of units with the ability to defend vs air. Why...
- SE Units... A few infos on them would be nice. How you get them etc...
- Heroes... Same as above.
- Disbanding units. This gives you prestige only in deployment phase and you get the FULL refund. It is not writen anywhere... (The first time I play I didn´t know and stupidly UPGRADED my first tanks. I should have just sold them and buy new other units like fighters or a betty tank. They sucked and didn´t accumulate much exp anyway.)
- Not all units carry over. Didn´t notice that the good tank on the first map doesn´t and so lost a lot of exp.
Well I could go on endlessly. But the post is quite long already. One point wich I am greatly disappointed is the total lacking of unit descriptions. Most of them can be found on Wikipedia and it would not take long to copy the core information from there. Most if not all points mentioned above can be "fixed" with better documentation. It would only take two hour at most to fix most of them, so I don´t really understand...
Still this game is quite addictive like the old PG2 and this is the best selling point. Spended over 10 hours on it already. The old PG2 felt more complete to me but that may be because my expectations on a game is higher now then ten years ago. ^^
So I tested this game.. Short feedback and a few suggestions
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Re: So I tested this game.. Short feedback and a few suggest
The price seems a little high for me too, but it's a great game with a small developer. I like to think that my money helps them survive on a market saturated by giants. No regrets!Moon84 wrote:Hello everyone,
Firstly I want to congratulate you guys for this game. However, I also have some criticism.
1. The Price is with 49.99$ too high for this game. I know that you want the best revenue for this title and perhaps this high prices proves you´re right.
Put them on a river hex and they automatically act as a bridge for friendly units. Be aware of an enemy unit zone of control (don't put the pioneers next to them)Moon84 wrote:- How are Brückenpioniere used?!
As far as I know, you do get a warning message. I believe this is in one of the tutorials.Moon84 wrote:- Gebirgsjäger with a transport vehicle seems lose their ability. A warning before you buy them cars? 0o
I don't think that the rate of fire is an implemented feature. The most important attribute for artillery (in game) is the "range".Moon84 wrote:- Artilery rate of fire is not the same for every model. But I can´t see this anywhere before I buy or upgrade them. Just found out by testing it in battle. This is so wrong...
I agree with the tech tree. It will be a nice addition. I also vote for expanded libraryMoon84 wrote:- Upgrades seems a little strange. Sometimes it cost me a bunch and sometimes it cost very little. A tech-tree would be very appreciated so you know what you should buy in the first place (I could not find this in the manual or in the library. Perhaps this is a feature, 'cause you didn´t know how the technology would advance in real war and so the new units should be a suprise!)
.Upgrades are cheaper when you don't switch models. E.G: upgrading PzIII from E to F. This is logical, basically you improve an existing equipment instead of buying a new one.
This has been described in detail in another post. Search the forums. Also, there are hidden difficulty level if you find Field Marshall too easy.Moon84 wrote:- What do the difficulty settings representing??? I started with the easiest difficulty just to notice a few chapters that AI troops are greatly reduced...
-> Totally sucks. Restart game with normal settings. Still quite easy after the first three maps. -> Restart on Field Marschall... hmm no changes? 0o
I don't see a problem with this. I imagine that a wing of fighters cannot be in 2 places at the same time. So they only attack one enemy group, hence one per turn.Moon84 wrote:- Fighter counterattack just once and Artilery counterattack is limitless? Maybe it is logical but still writing it down won´t hurt...
As far as I know, a unit that can defend from air cannot attack an air unit. It simply states that it can defend itself only.Moon84 wrote:- Strategical Bombers won´t get counterattacked by a lot of units with the ability to defend vs air. Why...
Already discussed. There is a 30% chance to receive one after a victory (don't know if it also needs to be Decisive). It can be infantry or tank.Moon84 wrote:- SE Units... A few infos on them would be nice. How you get them etc...
You need a medal before receiving a hero. Afterwards there is a chance to receive a hero when the unit gains a new star.Moon84 wrote:- Heroes... Same as above.
I had the same problemMoon84 wrote:- Disbanding units. This gives you prestige only in deployment phase and you get the FULL refund. It is not writen anywhere... (The first time I play I didn´t know and stupidly UPGRADED my first tanks. I should have just sold them and buy new other units like fighters or a betty tank. They sucked and didn´t accumulate much exp anyway.)
.
Only your core units (strength number has golden borderline) carry over. The other units are called auxiliary and are given only for that specific scenario.Moon84 wrote:- Not all units carry over. Didn´t notice that the good tank on the first map doesn´t and so lost a lot of exp.
As I said, I also want an improved library and I'm sure that it will expand with the next patches.Moon84 wrote:Well I could go on endlessly. But the post is quite long already. One point wich I am greatly disappointed is the total lacking of unit descriptions. Most of them can be found on Wikipedia and it would not take long to copy the core information from there. Most if not all points mentioned above can be "fixed" with better documentation. It would only take two hour at most to fix most of them, so I don´t really understand...
Anyway, I don't believe that the game was rushed. It has a few bugs already identified and in the process of being addressed. I worked as a game tester so believe me when I tell you that I know the state of game being rushed (a beta released as gold).
Cheers!
-
El_Condoro
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
ROF is implemented - the default is 10. If you Ctrl-click a target to get the combat breakdown you'll see some units have ROF that affects how many times they fire in a combat round. For example, a StuG III A or B has an 11 ROF (will fire 11 times in combat if on 10 strength) and a 17cm K18 ART has ROF of 8 (it fires 8 times in a combat round if on 10 strength).DreadWing wrote:I don't think that the rate of fire is an implemented feature. The most important attribute for artillery (in game) is the "range".
While I do agree that documentation for some of the more interesting and unique unit and unit functions is sometimes lacking, it's not quite as simple as you put it.
1. Bridge Engineer functionality should have been explained in the tutorial. Briefing text for tutorial scenario 3 has a paragraph devoted to explaining their use.
2. Transports do interfere with specialized movement, which I originally thought was a bug but turned out was a feature. It would be better with the option to discard transports voluntarily, and this or some other improvement is something we hope to have eventually.
3. Artillery rate of fire isn't explained anywhere, but should it be? Decisions were made that take place 'behind the scenes' to create better balanced play. Without RoF, light artillery pieces would be hopelessly outclassed by heavier artillery, and since relatively few units have RoF variance, it may just lead to confusion for brand new players. Any player who is curious about the details can always look at the expanded combat log for the exact information, but this level of play is not for everyone, and certainly not for a typically casual gamer.
4. I personally don't particularly like the upgrade model, but it is designed in such a way to fit the current campaign model, so it is what it is. A tech tree would be helpful, but it is fairly logical. PZIII is a family. 109s are a family. Once you know families exist, does it really matter which family is which?
5. Difficulty settings were intentionally left vague. Too much details and information can be scary for first time players. If you wall of text players with extreme and precise detail, it can be a serious turn off. I agree they could use some better documentation, but I also understand that too much information can be overwhelming and dangerous.
6. Panzer General relic, so I guess its somewhat taken for granted.
7. I dont understand what you are saying about strategic bombers. More likely, their high defense values make them appear to not be subject to air defense units. If you are talking about why a Panther G doesnt return fire against a B-17 with it's [1] air attack value well.... that's more of a historical feature.
SE units and heroes, again too much documentation can overwhelm new and casual players. How does knowing how you acquire them change the fact that you do or do not acquire them? You cannot manufacture situations to gain heroes or SE units faster, there are a lot of random variables.
Disbanding units could use some documentation. The pop up window that says 'are you sure u want to disband X unit' should have another line that says "prestige returned : #"
Units not carrying over is because AUX units do not carry over. This is actually covered in the manual (page 26).
Upon further looking at the manual, it actually covers a few of your concerns. Have you looked at the manual? If not, you should if you are looking for more of these detailed points.
As for copy pasting unit descriptions from wikipedia....
Well other than the common belief that wikipedia is often not the best source to go by, there's a problem of translation and localization.
If we just copy paste from wikipedia... what's the point in that? People will definitely notice 'wow you guys cut and paste from wikipedia, how lazy is that?"
If we write up detailed units descriptions based on actual sources and tech manuals, then we have to localize and translate that text into... how many languages are we aiming to support? Italian, English, Russian, German, Japanese... and the list goes on. All of a sudden 400 descriptions for 400 units is now multiplied by X amount of languages.
So two hours of work? If it was, it would have been done. But it's not.
1. Bridge Engineer functionality should have been explained in the tutorial. Briefing text for tutorial scenario 3 has a paragraph devoted to explaining their use.
2. Transports do interfere with specialized movement, which I originally thought was a bug but turned out was a feature. It would be better with the option to discard transports voluntarily, and this or some other improvement is something we hope to have eventually.
3. Artillery rate of fire isn't explained anywhere, but should it be? Decisions were made that take place 'behind the scenes' to create better balanced play. Without RoF, light artillery pieces would be hopelessly outclassed by heavier artillery, and since relatively few units have RoF variance, it may just lead to confusion for brand new players. Any player who is curious about the details can always look at the expanded combat log for the exact information, but this level of play is not for everyone, and certainly not for a typically casual gamer.
4. I personally don't particularly like the upgrade model, but it is designed in such a way to fit the current campaign model, so it is what it is. A tech tree would be helpful, but it is fairly logical. PZIII is a family. 109s are a family. Once you know families exist, does it really matter which family is which?
5. Difficulty settings were intentionally left vague. Too much details and information can be scary for first time players. If you wall of text players with extreme and precise detail, it can be a serious turn off. I agree they could use some better documentation, but I also understand that too much information can be overwhelming and dangerous.
6. Panzer General relic, so I guess its somewhat taken for granted.
7. I dont understand what you are saying about strategic bombers. More likely, their high defense values make them appear to not be subject to air defense units. If you are talking about why a Panther G doesnt return fire against a B-17 with it's [1] air attack value well.... that's more of a historical feature.
SE units and heroes, again too much documentation can overwhelm new and casual players. How does knowing how you acquire them change the fact that you do or do not acquire them? You cannot manufacture situations to gain heroes or SE units faster, there are a lot of random variables.
Disbanding units could use some documentation. The pop up window that says 'are you sure u want to disband X unit' should have another line that says "prestige returned : #"
Units not carrying over is because AUX units do not carry over. This is actually covered in the manual (page 26).
Upon further looking at the manual, it actually covers a few of your concerns. Have you looked at the manual? If not, you should if you are looking for more of these detailed points.
As for copy pasting unit descriptions from wikipedia....
Well other than the common belief that wikipedia is often not the best source to go by, there's a problem of translation and localization.
If we just copy paste from wikipedia... what's the point in that? People will definitely notice 'wow you guys cut and paste from wikipedia, how lazy is that?"
If we write up detailed units descriptions based on actual sources and tech manuals, then we have to localize and translate that text into... how many languages are we aiming to support? Italian, English, Russian, German, Japanese... and the list goes on. All of a sudden 400 descriptions for 400 units is now multiplied by X amount of languages.
So two hours of work? If it was, it would have been done. But it's not.
And as dreadwing said, you do get a warning message about transports and mountain infantry. I personally wrote that into the tutorial briefing myself and made absolutely sure it was included in the game 'somewhere'.
Last edited by Kerensky on Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
My mistake, sorry.El_Condoro wrote:ROF is implemented - the default is 10. If you Ctrl-click a target to get the combat breakdown you'll see some units have ROF that affects how many times they fire in a combat round. For example, a StuG III A or B has an 11 ROF (will fire 11 times in combat if on 10 strength) and a 17cm K18 ART has ROF of 8 (it fires 8 times in a combat round if on 10 strength).DreadWing wrote:I don't think that the rate of fire is an implemented feature. The most important attribute for artillery (in game) is the "range".
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
Thanks for the feedback.
The reason we dont have unit descriptions it he volume of text it generates. Forst someone has to write them. Let's say 250 words a unit. thats 400x250 = 100,000 words. You cannot copy the text from wikepedia - thats illegal. It's also badly wrong in a lot of places. Someone has to research that which is weeks or months of time. The game would still be in production if we had to do this.
Then it needs to be translated. It takes about 3 months to transalte that much text to any degree of quality with someone who understands it and costs about 10,000 Euros per language. We have about 8 languages in production currently. That would multiple times what the game cost to make just to add descriptions to units
While it is something we'd liked to have had it was completely impractical in many ways.
It's great we are being compared to StarCraft, but this team had 1 programmer on it (Alex) - for everything. It also had 1 map designer and the Lordz to do all the art & media. For an indie game its pretty amazing I would never use a small team as an excuse for quality - players dont care that AAA games have big teams and we don't - they care about a good game. Small teams still have to produce a quality game to earn peoples money. However I would use the excuse of a small team to explain why it can't have all the peripheral features of a game like StarCraft. There simply are not enough hours in the day.
The reason we dont have unit descriptions it he volume of text it generates. Forst someone has to write them. Let's say 250 words a unit. thats 400x250 = 100,000 words. You cannot copy the text from wikepedia - thats illegal. It's also badly wrong in a lot of places. Someone has to research that which is weeks or months of time. The game would still be in production if we had to do this.
Then it needs to be translated. It takes about 3 months to transalte that much text to any degree of quality with someone who understands it and costs about 10,000 Euros per language. We have about 8 languages in production currently. That would multiple times what the game cost to make just to add descriptions to units
While it is something we'd liked to have had it was completely impractical in many ways.
It's great we are being compared to StarCraft, but this team had 1 programmer on it (Alex) - for everything. It also had 1 map designer and the Lordz to do all the art & media. For an indie game its pretty amazing
I would never use a small team as an excuse for quality - players dont care that AAA games have big teams and we don't - they care about a good game. Small teams still have to produce a quality game to earn peoples money. However I would use the excuse of a small team to explain why it can't have all the peripheral features of a game like StarCraft. There simply are not enough hours in the day.
@ DreadWing
1. I have no problems supporting a small developer. I just want to have some fun with games after hours of hard work, so even if it cost more I would probably still buy it. However thinking again about the price it just seems not right. ^^
2. Yeah, I just tested it out with the Brückenpioniere. The problem was indeed with the enemy unit's zone of control, so I didn´t see any effect and didn´t know the Brückenpioniere already builded the bridge. (btw It is not logical that they can attack and build a brigde the same turn. ^^)
3. My fault with the Gebirgsjäger, just replayed the tutorial and it was indeed mentioned. I must have forgotten it later in the actual campain. But still just mention it once in the tutorial is not enough imo. It would be better in the units description...
4. About the things like difficulty settings that are already mentioned in the forum. Well, it is nice to see other people have the same question. This just proves that I am not alone with the feeling that information is lacking. I want to enjoy a game before actually browsing a board. ^^
5. About the fighters. Yes, it is quite logical if you put it that way but in a game not everything is logical. I noticed this only after my paratrooper was shot dead from the british luftwaffe that one fighter as escort is not enough. -> restart chapter.
@ Kerensky
1. My fault as explained above.
3. You're right again. I didn´t think iabout it that way. Sometimes a little less infomation is more and here it is definitly right.
4. I didn´t talk about a tech-tree wich is self explanatory AFTER the units are avaible. It would be quite nice to see what you can upgrade your units into later in the game so you get the right units from the start. It just sucks to see that there is a strong bomber and you can´t upgrade your older model but must buy a new one.
However as I also wrote before. Maybe it is implemented so that you don´t know what technology will be avaible later to simulate the real warsituation.
5. Well, I for my part want to know at least a little about the settings. I would never want to mop up enemy troops with just half manpower even as a warm up. I don´t think it is really too much to know this before I actually start playing.
7. Well, I know the excact cirumstances anymore. But just now in Operation Babarossa there is this damm sturdy fortress. It has quite good air counterattack but it won´t shot the strategical bombers at all just the tactical and fighters. I am quite sure there where other units, too.
About the SE units and Hero I can partially agree with you again. But if you just know that for example +3 ATK/INI/DEF is max you will be more happy it than if you just get +1. But this is may be only my personal preference.
@ iainmcneil
Sorry, this is coming from playing to many "Total War" games. xD
As I said my expectations since PG2 seems to be higher now because of all the improvements make by all the game developers and so a lot of things like unit description are taken for granted. I also didn´t know that you plan to release it in so many languages. However I must say for my defence that I only bought this game because Gamestar gave it a Gold Award and 85%!!! You have every right to be proud of this game and so it must be compared with the top strategy games released so far.
This is also the reason why I felt the game was rushed and the unit description seems missing because it is imo a basic feature from all the "good" games I know and there is a quite large box at the bottom center screen. It is empty for a lot of units and I thought the planned text would be put there. However the place is used for vehicles. ^^
Greetz
PS: I just realised that an air unit with 0 fuel must be placed exactly on top of an airfield. Staying in a hex nearby won´t help... It makes sense, but only after you loose the unit ;_;
1. I have no problems supporting a small developer. I just want to have some fun with games after hours of hard work, so even if it cost more I would probably still buy it. However thinking again about the price it just seems not right. ^^
2. Yeah, I just tested it out with the Brückenpioniere. The problem was indeed with the enemy unit's zone of control, so I didn´t see any effect and didn´t know the Brückenpioniere already builded the bridge. (btw It is not logical that they can attack and build a brigde the same turn. ^^)
3. My fault with the Gebirgsjäger, just replayed the tutorial and it was indeed mentioned. I must have forgotten it later in the actual campain. But still just mention it once in the tutorial is not enough imo. It would be better in the units description...
4. About the things like difficulty settings that are already mentioned in the forum. Well, it is nice to see other people have the same question. This just proves that I am not alone with the feeling that information is lacking. I want to enjoy a game before actually browsing a board. ^^
5. About the fighters. Yes, it is quite logical if you put it that way but in a game not everything is logical. I noticed this only after my paratrooper was shot dead from the british luftwaffe that one fighter as escort is not enough. -> restart chapter.
@ Kerensky
1. My fault as explained above.
3. You're right again. I didn´t think iabout it that way. Sometimes a little less infomation is more and here it is definitly right.
4. I didn´t talk about a tech-tree wich is self explanatory AFTER the units are avaible. It would be quite nice to see what you can upgrade your units into later in the game so you get the right units from the start. It just sucks to see that there is a strong bomber and you can´t upgrade your older model but must buy a new one.
However as I also wrote before. Maybe it is implemented so that you don´t know what technology will be avaible later to simulate the real warsituation.
5. Well, I for my part want to know at least a little about the settings. I would never want to mop up enemy troops with just half manpower even as a warm up. I don´t think it is really too much to know this before I actually start playing.
7. Well, I know the excact cirumstances anymore. But just now in Operation Babarossa there is this damm sturdy fortress. It has quite good air counterattack but it won´t shot the strategical bombers at all just the tactical and fighters. I am quite sure there where other units, too.
About the SE units and Hero I can partially agree with you again. But if you just know that for example +3 ATK/INI/DEF is max you will be more happy it than if you just get +1. But this is may be only my personal preference.
@ iainmcneil
Sorry, this is coming from playing to many "Total War" games. xD
As I said my expectations since PG2 seems to be higher now because of all the improvements make by all the game developers and so a lot of things like unit description are taken for granted. I also didn´t know that you plan to release it in so many languages. However I must say for my defence that I only bought this game because Gamestar gave it a Gold Award and 85%!!! You have every right to be proud of this game and so it must be compared with the top strategy games released so far.
This is also the reason why I felt the game was rushed and the unit description seems missing because it is imo a basic feature from all the "good" games I know and there is a quite large box at the bottom center screen. It is empty for a lot of units and I thought the planned text would be put there. However the place is used for vehicles. ^^
Greetz
PS: I just realised that an air unit with 0 fuel must be placed exactly on top of an airfield. Staying in a hex nearby won´t help... It makes sense, but only after you loose the unit ;_;
-
WabeWalker
- Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:06 pm
OP, the entire point of Panzer Corps was to recreate Panzer General.
Back in 1994 it took me about as much time as it's taken you to understand the mechanics of the game - because, actually, a lot was left unexplained about the original PG (the manual was Spartan). Your own post is interesting because you're basically showing us how much you've learned about the complexities of the gameplay.
You write that you didn't understand this, and you didn't understand that - yet look at how much you actually do understand!
That was part of the enjoyment of the original game as well.
Here's a little anecdote. In 1994, one of my first mistakes, which I made about three times, was not purchasing a transport for my new artillery unit. I did the exact same thing in Panzer Corps. I set down my artillery piece, and when I went to move it I couldn't. It was only when I exited the game about an hour later that something jarred in my memory, and I realized that I had made the same mistake 17 years earlier.
Also, about the cost of the game itself: nobody else was going to recreate Panzer General, and this is a truly professional job. In my opinion, this is worth the price.
Back in 1994 it took me about as much time as it's taken you to understand the mechanics of the game - because, actually, a lot was left unexplained about the original PG (the manual was Spartan). Your own post is interesting because you're basically showing us how much you've learned about the complexities of the gameplay.
You write that you didn't understand this, and you didn't understand that - yet look at how much you actually do understand!
That was part of the enjoyment of the original game as well.
Here's a little anecdote. In 1994, one of my first mistakes, which I made about three times, was not purchasing a transport for my new artillery unit. I did the exact same thing in Panzer Corps. I set down my artillery piece, and when I went to move it I couldn't. It was only when I exited the game about an hour later that something jarred in my memory, and I realized that I had made the same mistake 17 years earlier.
Also, about the cost of the game itself: nobody else was going to recreate Panzer General, and this is a truly professional job. In my opinion, this is worth the price.
Yeah don't shoot the messenger. His criticism is much wanted and not to be handwaved, even if I don't agree to all points.
I also think the special abilities of certain units are not always clear and indeed you can check for them ingame anywhere. This is mostly true for infantry.
I *know* from reading a Panzer General FAQ over 10+ years ago that Pioniere ignore ignore entrenchment.
so... I suppose the same is true for Rangers? How about Paratroopers? And what is the special movement bonus of Gebirgsjäger units actually?
This info is just missing! The same is true for the display of the bonuses of various leaders, I wish modified values would show up in red numbers on the F6 screen.
If there is not enough place elsewhere for mentioning or explaining special capabilities I would suggest this:
- encyclopedia/library entries for all unit classes (this is already quite good in the purchase screen and could be copied)
- a page for every unit. Not every unit needs a full blown report and all that. But special abilities could at least be mentioned here.
I read that Gebirgsjäger abilities and specials apparently get mentioned in the Tutorial but that should not be the only place of reference.
I also think the special abilities of certain units are not always clear and indeed you can check for them ingame anywhere. This is mostly true for infantry.
I *know* from reading a Panzer General FAQ over 10+ years ago that Pioniere ignore ignore entrenchment.
so... I suppose the same is true for Rangers? How about Paratroopers? And what is the special movement bonus of Gebirgsjäger units actually?
This info is just missing! The same is true for the display of the bonuses of various leaders, I wish modified values would show up in red numbers on the F6 screen.
If there is not enough place elsewhere for mentioning or explaining special capabilities I would suggest this:
- encyclopedia/library entries for all unit classes (this is already quite good in the purchase screen and could be copied)
- a page for every unit. Not every unit needs a full blown report and all that. But special abilities could at least be mentioned here.
I read that Gebirgsjäger abilities and specials apparently get mentioned in the Tutorial but that should not be the only place of reference.
Do you know that we've more than 400 units? I know that not all are different, but we're speaking, nonetheless, in a huge number.Wik wrote:The documentation part is my biggest disappointment. I had hoped for a really detailed unit description and documentation.
I really hope this will be available in a future patch/expansion
That would be nice, of course, but it would take a lot of time. That time can be spent in developing more the game. And that, IMO, is more important than elaborate a full documentation.
Please remind, that Slitherine/Matrix, are not big a studio and do not have the resources that AAA titles have.
To be honest I agree with the comment, I would love to see more detailed documentary and unit descriptions for all units.
But we just don`t have the manpower, time and resources to complete that task ourselves.
I really hope this could become a community effort and mod though, I would gladly support such a project.
But it will take blood, sweat and tears to complete it and we need at least a couple of WW2 fanatic researchers and a whole bunch of capable and committed writers.
If someone is interested to start such a mod project, start recruiting and assemble a mod team than contact me by PM and we will support you in any possible way.
Cheers,
Tim aka LZ
But we just don`t have the manpower, time and resources to complete that task ourselves.
I really hope this could become a community effort and mod though, I would gladly support such a project.
But it will take blood, sweat and tears to complete it and we need at least a couple of WW2 fanatic researchers and a whole bunch of capable and committed writers.
If someone is interested to start such a mod project, start recruiting and assemble a mod team than contact me by PM and we will support you in any possible way.
Cheers,
Tim aka LZ
Tim van der Moer - CEO The Lordz Games Studio
http://www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
http://www.panzer-corps.com
http://www.commander-games.com
http://www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
http://www.panzer-corps.com
http://www.commander-games.com
Just one suggestion, perhaps it would be possible to use the unit description of the Pacific General library? Pacific General had a library for all units of all nations involved in WW2, even from the European theater. The Pacific General library contained descriptions and information about any unit used in the five star series. As the units are nearly identical in Panzer Corps and the SSI five star series, the Pacific General library could be used as a basis for expanding the Panzer Corps library. The Pacific General library contained even more units then Panzer Corps.
I think that Pacific General is considered as "abandonware", but I do not know if it would be legally allowed to use the Pacific General library text for Panzer Corps. However, perhaps you could check this with your legal department.
Cheers Zechi
I think that Pacific General is considered as "abandonware", but I do not know if it would be legally allowed to use the Pacific General library text for Panzer Corps. However, perhaps you could check this with your legal department.
Cheers Zechi
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
What about asking for a permission? Is Ubisoft still the copyright holder for the SSI games? Perhaps they would allow to use the Pacific General library. I even think that the units description in the Pacific General library were not outlined by SSI, but instead copied from other sources (encyclopedias etc.).iainmcneil wrote:Abandonware is just another name for piracy unfortunately and it would be illegal to take anything from any other game/source without permission. You might not get prosecuted if you did it, but it doesnt change the fact its not legal.
With all due respect to your opinion, but I think that's not the right path.zechi wrote:What about asking for a permission? Is Ubisoft still the copyright holder for the SSI games? Perhaps they would allow to use the Pacific General library. I even think that the units description in the Pacific General library were not outlined by SSI, but instead copied from other sources (encyclopedias etc.).
IMO, it doesn't seem good to use the material of SSI, or in fact, use directly material from one source.
Like lordzimoa suggested, the right way IMO, we should gather a group of volunteers and do the work ourselves.