Star General

PC : Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General. This promises to be a true classic!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

Molve
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:06 am

Post by Molve »

VPaulus wrote:I've always had the idea, maybe because it was a better version, that Fantasy General was the favourite.
Hard to say with such an inequal comparison... ;)

Regardless, let it be said that before you consider any Star or Fantasy Corps, you have a huge void of WWII Corps to fill first! :lol:
Iscaran
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:12 pm

Post by Iscaran »

From the type of setting I would definitely prefer a "Star" over a "Fantasy" General remake.

The futuristic and distinctly different way how "star battles" (with space ships) could be handled within a PG engine makes imho far more sense then just make elve archer (instead of artillery) units and make the "same" kind of battles like already in Panzer Corps.


I think a properly done star general "remake" would attract maybe even new customers...

IMHO a Star Corps has to be more like PzC and less like the original Star General. I especially would not mix ground with space combat in one setting...I think. But might be fun if its not the kind of resource wasting way of battling which Star General was.
TheGrayMouser
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Posts: 5001
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser »

Oh boy , i guess ill be going against the grain here but I LIKED the way Star General was a large open ended map of "space hexes" ( and there were diffent types as well. black holes nebula astoriods etc. IMHO the game failed not because of the idea or theme but because the AI couldnt handle the open ended nature of the game. This coupled with the massive slowdown 100 turns in made it bad game. ( not sure if the slowdown was due to the above mentioned memory leak or if it was just there were so many units on th emap at later stages. I think if done "right" the basic game could have been pretty darn good. No game that I know of features space combat also with a dedicated ground combat like this, exept for Emperor of the fading Suns , which also failed because the AI couldnt handle the deep scope. Sure , the planet sufoces should have been larger in SG and they should have tweaked the space combat a little more ( what , no space fighters!?) but I think the basic design was a good one
macattack
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by macattack »

Well I don't know about everyone else but what I look for in my gaming is #1 a play style I enjoy and #2 variety.

My favorite play style is turn-based strategy. If the phone rings, the dog pukes up on the carpet, the kid invades my nice quiet room with 10 of her girlfriends, or I just can't ignore the wife's yelling any longer, I want to be able to walk away from my game for 10 seconds or 10 minutes and come back to exactly the way I left it. So PC is perfect for that, and really there is no more work to be done on the play design.

So that leaves variety. We all love PC and I think one of the reasons it's an improvement over PG is because Slitherine went a lot deeper into the variety of units produced by the German and even Allied armies. Yet here we sit anxiously awaiting Allied Corps and Pacific War. Buy why? It's still just tanks, planes and infantry. Because we crave that small amount of variety. The war from the Allied perspective. The war in the pacific which would include larger naval engagements and Japanese units.

Fantasy Corps and Star Corps would offer even more variety. Yes, you will still basically have a "tank" unit, an "air" unit and an "infantry" unit, but now the units are not governed by our laws of physics. And the terrain is no longer governed by the laws of Earth. The amount of variety in your infantry, tanks, air, space and artillery, and where you fight with it, is only limited by imagination.

And although I would look forward to both games, I too would look forward to Star Corps not only because of the variety of inventing different race's units and abilities, but because of the size of the theater of warfare it can give. I am sure many of us have played Avalon Hill's War in the Pacific ages ago spread out over a ping pong table. Although the fuel and supply aspect of the game was a pain in the butt, I loved managing an entire theater's army, navy and air force down to every battle order, air attack or combat air patrol over my carriers. Yes it was hundreds of units, but they were MY hundreds of units.

Ok, but what about scale. As Molve mentioned in a prior post, he dreaded seeing his monitor completely filled with space cruisers. And he probably wouldn't be too keen on managing 10 or 12 planetary invasion armies. But it sounds like Gray Mouser would love a screen filled with star cruisers and ground invasions on 30 different planets. Well then you manage the size of the campaign you want to play, just like PC does.

PC doesn't start you out with 30 core units and all of Europe to conquer. You start with a handful of core units and a small part of Europe to win or lose. Your core and areas of Europe grow from there from scenario to scenario. The same can be done with Star Corps.

For example. Suppose Molve does not want to manage 100 ground units and 100 space units over 100 planets because he feels that it takes away from PC's tactical rock, paper, scissors approach and results in too much time managing units instead of fighting with them. Well then Star Corps can have a small campaign that will start with 6-8 ground core units, and 6-8 space core units and 3 planets, which will grow scenario by scenario to 25 ground core units and 25 space core units and 15 planets by the end of the campaign.

But what about Gray Mouser? 25 units does not slake his lust for numbers and he's anxious to see how rock, paper, scissors plays out with over 100 units. Well he can chose a campaign that will start with the same 6-8 units in each core and 3 planets, but depending on how well and quickly he succeeds in each scenario, he could end up with 200 space and ground core units and 50 planets to conquer at the end of his campaign.

So why not play Civilization? Because Civilization does not manage its units. Civilization and games like it have a simple theme of max production + max research = max expansion and a win. If you have 2000 units, the computer will counter with 2500. You counter that 2500 with 3000, and the computer will show up with 5000. In PC, you have your core and the computer has its core. You manage your core of units better or you lose.

Essentially it would be Pacific Corps' naval and air warfare in space, and PC's land and air warfare on the planets. Variety is a good thing, even for rock, paper, scissors. Don't think so? I give you rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock. 8)
Molve
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:06 am

Post by Molve »

Just to clarify: me not wanting a screen filled with space cruisers isn't primarily (or even secondarily) about numbers. It's about (lack of) startegy/tactics.

Much like when ten Tiger IIs goes toe to toe with a dozen IS-2s on an open plain, or when you direct naval units in PC/PG, there really isn't much to do but to pound away at one unit until its dead, then take the next one.

Simply hoping your units will last longer than the enemy's. That's slugger tactics, lacking finesse and thought.

That is what was wrong with "space cruisers". The problem was made worse by ranged units - no matter how you positioned your front, the enemy could always pick a unit and pound it into dust, simply by overwhelming numbers (somwhat akin to People's General).

One of the subtle but great changes in PC is how no tanks have range > 1.

So it wasn't just that SG "filled the screen" with units. The problems were much deeper than that. The entire game was designed without a thought to how the nice warm feeling of Panzer General should be retained. A feeling chiefly generated by careful selection of limitations.

To return to the numbers issue briefly: Despite your experiences with memory leaks it's actually not difficult to design a computer game with many units. That doesn't mean you should do it. A game in the vein of Panzer General or Corps does not necessarily become better, more engrossing and/or fun with more units.

The PC crew (programmers as well as scenario designers) apparently understands all this. The SG crew very obviously did not.
macattack
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by macattack »

I never played People's General, so I assume the tanks had ranged attacks in that game that offset the effectiveness of other units.

And I'm not saying that I want a game that has battle after battle with a screen full of units. As you say, slugger tactics.

But I do think a theater of war that requires that many units due to it's size can be interesting, and perhaps culminating into part slug-fest, part tactics could be interesting.

And there were tactics even in the Star General slug-fest. I don't know how it worked in People's General, but yes there were ranged cruisers in SG that acted as artillery. And yes, you had the difficulty of no air force being able to fly over to that artillery and bomb it out of existence. You had to work through the screening forces, but each race was given ways to work through the other's screening forces without needlessly sacrificing capital ships. And likewise, each race had screening forces that protected the artillery and capital ships. You just had to figure out what ships were designed to be protected, and which ones to use as cannon fodder.

I forget which post it was where someone was agonizing over the problems of mines in PC and how to handle them, and the poster was going into specially designed tanks, or specially geared engineers, or a special removal unit, but then the cost of having that specialized unit wasted, and finally one of the moderators put up a simple post... throw a conscript at it.

SG had a lot of that.
Molve
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:06 am

Post by Molve »

macattack wrote:I never played People's General, so I assume the tanks had ranged attacks in that game that offset the effectiveness of other units.
When the opposition have artillery, rockets, helicopters and land units generally have much stronger offense than defense that means that you can't attach yourself to any given unit. ANY front-line unit the enemy wants dead it can kill. This may be very realistic, but it makes for a poor "role-playing" experience. Meaning all the stuff about xp, medals and heroes fall flat, since you can't play in a way that meaningfully increase your chances of having your heroes survive. It all is up to luck and chance, basically.

Again, realistic, but a poor fit for a PG type of game. IMHO.

And to reply directly to your comment: no, increasing range is a fundamental shift in how the game is played. At range zero you can pretty much predict which enemy units will be able to reach your unit, and more importantly how many.

Give all tanks range 3 and no unit, not even a five-star Tiger II, is safe anymore. (Since it could well be overwhelmed by ten IS-2s) Sure it did its job (making the rest of your army safe from the entire IS-2 contingent is no small feat) but where's the beer and pretzels fun...?

People's General felt much like that. Tanks didn't have that kind of range, of course, but it mattered little since there are a lot of modern hardware with excellent hard attack values that strike at a range.

Armor still has a role to play on the modern battlefield, only you need to model terrain MUCH more in detail for it to feel worthwhile. It's much more of a cat and mouse game, denying your enemy good intel. All aspects that Panzer General games don't cover at all or simplifies too much.

Also, driving a tank against Iraqi is one thing. Driving it against the 1970 Red Army or contemporary PRC forces, well the time of heroes has simply passed.

It's much like you could be an individual fighter ace during WWI. Not so much during WWII. Whole squadrons can still survive, as shown by Panzer Corps, but not individual planes and pilots - the environment simply is too deadly.

In the same way, the deadliness of a Panzer commander in 1939-1945 is "just right". In later eras, not so much.

To return to the subject of Star General, I'm actually expecting any designer to have to think long and hard on how to justify the (made up) technology that just so happens to recreate exactly the right parameters for the game too feel right, to be fun, and to allow all the little touches of Panzer General/Corps (only in space).

You don't want to just reskin the existing game. But creating ANOTHER set of units that just happens to create an interesting rock-paper-scissors dynamic (without feeling like a Panzer ripoff) is not trivial...
Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 8624
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Post by Kerensky »

Have you heard of GSB?

http://www.positech.co.uk/gratuitousspacebattles/

I would say this is a great space strategy game, except that it's more like a screensaver than a game. All the 'game' goes into the pre-scenario planning (building, placing, and programming fleets) and there is no interaction or control during the actual battle. None, zero, nothing. Which is fine for that game because that's the intention behind it.
macattack
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by macattack »

Meaning all the stuff about xp, medals and heroes fall flat, since you can't play in a way that meaningfully increase your chances of having your heroes survive.
Ok Molve, I've been trying to figure you out for over a week now, and I finally get you! And you were right to stop playing SG. You would never have grown to like that game.

And it is going to take some thinking to come up with the scale that I would like to see, yet keep the "beer & pretzels" that you refer to.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of quadrants in the space universe and have unit limits in each quadrant. But then how do you make the quadrants interact in a meaningful way? This will take some thought.

Oh and thanks Kerensky, that is a cool game. It's no PC, but it is cool.

:)
VPaulus
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 8325
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:33 pm
Location: Portugal

Post by VPaulus »

You've also Space Piratez and Zombies: http://spacepiratesandzombies.com/about.html
macattack
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by macattack »

You've also Space Piratez and Zombies: http://spacepiratesandzombies.com/about.html
That one looks like real-time to me, which is a bit too fast for an old fart like me. I'm a beer & pretzel player.

But I did buy the gratuitous space battles. My daughter even likes it!

Thanks for the bonus quality time with my daughter.

:)
kjeld111
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:53 am

Post by kjeld111 »

I like GSB. It's a nice, relaxing game, the ship design part has a decent depth, and the automated battles have nice special effects.

On topic, I loved fantasy general, perhaps even more than panzer general (hehe, I know, heresy !). The PG game system was translated and expanded nicely, and worked surprisingly well with the fantasy genre (siege units, magic units, skirmishers, heroes, items, research ... everything did fit well). But over the well polished game system, this game had a very unique atmosphere (fantastic music score, nice hand drawn unit artworks ...). The Fantasy Wars/Elven Legacy series was good, but I'd really love to see a remake of the initial game.

Couldn't get into Star General : some good ideas, but it didn't work (at least, for me). That been said, I can't even recall of having played a (working) turn based tactical game in a space setting. There are some good 4X games (even RTS, like Sins of a Solar Empire) however.
Molve
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:06 am

Post by Molve »

On the topic of "good turn-based 4X space games" keep an eye out for GMT's plans to computerize their Space Empires 4X board game.

That is, make a tablet (read "iPad") version of the wargame that is inspired by (and have artwork from) the computer game series but otherwise is a separate design of its own.

GMT: gmtgames.com/p-317-space-empires.aspx
SE4X on the Geek: boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/84419/space-empires-4x
Space Empires: malfador.com
(delinkified since I don't want to come across as a shill for other products here on Slith's forums)
macattack
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by macattack »

I hope Molve is right.

Unfortunately it looks like the default thinking in the industry for every space game is to make it real time.

I'm not familiar with Space Empires 4X, but I'd be happy to give it a try if they ever made it into a turn-based computer game. But I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be real-time.

Plus, they could do some of Slitherine's groundwork for Space Corps and Fantasy Corps.
TheGrayMouser
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Posts: 5001
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser »

kjeld111 wrote: Couldn't get into Star General : some good ideas, but it didn't work (at least, for me). That been said, I can't even recall of having played a (working) turn based tactical game in a space setting. There are some good 4X games (even RTS, like Sins of a Solar Empire) however.
Not even MOO1 and MOO2 ?
kjeld111
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:53 am

Post by kjeld111 »

I do classify MOO1-2 as 4X games, that's why I didn't mention them. Absolutely loved SMAC too, actually one on my all times favorite games in the "civ-like" genre (along with Master of Magic and Fall from Heaven II mod and modmods - but those are obviously not in the "space" subgenre 8) ).

But I don't really consider them TB tactical games. In my eyes, it's a whole different genre. But those are great games indeed.
TheGrayMouser
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Posts: 5001
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser »

Ok misunderstood, i was just thinking that MOO2 inlcuded turn based tactical space combat , although of course the game focused on the strategy portion of expand exterminate explore etc :)

Some thoughts on a SG remake: despite the fact that the game wasnt very good (bad AI put together likly as a last ditch effort to squeeze more sales of an old engine) I thought the basic premise was very good and unique for a space game

What other game allows planetary conquest by actuall tactical handling of ground units? really none.

What games ( except Galciv) has an open ended space map where ships can sail about as they please and fight tactical combat ?

I would hete to see a SG remake go back to a mission based aproach like the ground pounder PG series . What would that be like, every mission you start w a fleet and xports and assault a planet evry time?

The best thing about an open space map is that differnt space units come into there own with their strategic value and not just their tactical roles. In WW1 2 , destroyers crusiers etc all had very real and important tasks that never are represented in any 4 x games. Basiclly in 4x games bigger ships loaded with latest tech are the only way to go. At least with an open space map there is actual usage for picket ships , LR recon, crusisers that can raid enemy convoys or take out raiders themselves. SG had the opportunity to pull this off but failed as the engine and AI couldnt cope with it.
postalpanzer
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:29 pm

Post by postalpanzer »

I think a nifty thing they could do with star general is to make random advancements of units every turn between battles a few upgrades of current units become avail or maybe even a new chassis. You start with Tank I then you might get an upgrade to the Tank I or more rarer the Tank II. The units available every campaign will be different and have different stats you might have to change your strategy as to what units are avail to you.
Molve
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:06 am

Post by Molve »

macattack wrote:I hope Molve is right.

Unfortunately it looks like the default thinking in the industry for every space game is to make it real time.

I'm not familiar with Space Empires 4X, but I'd be happy to give it a try if they ever made it into a turn-based computer game. But I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be real-time.
Well I can certainly understand the sentiment. But GMT is a company well grounded in epic history war simulations, and it's a company firmly into board games, not computer games.

They really see tablets as "electronic kitchen tables"; an outlet to expand the market for their board games. Not to turn them into action games (there are plenty other companies doing that kind of game much slicker already).

I believe the "risk" of them going RTS for their tablet version of SE4X is next to non-existent.
(Disclaimer: Personal non-informed guess only)

(Enough about that; back to Star Corps :) )
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”