Is it possible to make Pancer Corps even more realistic?

[Tordenskjold]

It seems the team behind this very fun game intend to make it as realistic as possible without ruining the fun. That is great. I guess altering something will influence on other aspects, but I would anyway like to add some suggestions after approximately 100 hours gaming.

1. Ship guns: It seems very odd that a ship can actually harm a unit hidden in the mountains 150 kilometers away. At least! It is realistic with long range in sea battles, but not in shore bombardement. I assume a range of 1 hex should depict what really happened historically.

2. UK ships: I have seen a lot of examples that ships stays on the same spot with an enemy bomber above just waiting to get sunked. The sips should try to get away since, needless to say, no one would wait for the next bomb in real life.

3. Forts: The fort in Brest Litovsk is only possible to crack with railroad artillery. I know that this fort actually held out for a month, but should not Pioneers have a chance to score some hits on it? I thougth that that was the purpose of the Pioneers?

4. Soviet fighers: By the end of 1941 only 500 Yakovlev fighters where built. They should thus not turn up at Barbarossa. The main Soviet figher then was Polikarpov I-16 which is also in the game. Even though this was a great fighter it seems too strong compared to German Messerschmitts and the fact that many planes where destroyed on the airfields a fact not depicted in this game. To make things more historical there should be more but weaker Soviet planes and as stated before more infantry. This will also force the gamer to use different approaches depending on the enemy. As of now, the different nations seems rather similar. (I have only played the campaign)

5. Oscarsborg fortress: This fortress outside Oslo sank the Blucher. The distance where less than 1000 yards and the topography is such that it is impossible to fire much longer distances. Of course in the game this fort might depict several forts in the Oslo Fjord but I can't see how the game will be less fun if the firing range where reduced to a more realistic level.

6. Cavalry seems seriously overpowered. The best way to deal with a cav. unit seems to be with another cav. unit. In WW2 these units was obsolete and thus these units would do better not to exsist, alternatively be much weaker but have a scouting capability like Recon units.

Great game!

[Kerensky]

In general, also very specifically with your concern of #3, 4, and 5, it sounds like the upcoming DLC content will be right up your alley.

There's an entire mission dedicated to saving the Blucher from the Oscarborg, as an optional objective in addition to victory hex grabbing.

[Tordenskjold]

In general, also very specifically with your concern of #3, 4, and 5, it sounds like the upcoming DLC content will be right up your alley.

Sounds very promising! What about the others I wonder?
Do you know when it is to be expected?
What does DLC stand for? Could not find it on the net...

[Fimconte]

It seems the team behind this very fun game intend to make it as realistic as possible without ruining the fun. That is great. I guess altering something will influence on other aspects, but I would anyway like to add some suggestions after approximately 100 hours gaming.

1. Ship guns: It seems very odd that a ship can actually harm a unit hidden in the mountains 150 kilometers away. At least! It is realistic with long range in sea battles, but not in shore bombardement. I assume a range of 1 hex should depict what really happened historically.

The problem here is that a single hex can represent different sizes, depending on the map.
however I'm not sure which maps you have issues with.
For example in Sea Lion your ships are barely in range of London at the mouth of the Thames. (which in reality is ~30 miles from the sea), and as German naval guns of the era had a effective range of 22 miles(35km), it's not stretching the reality too far.

2. UK ships: I have seen a lot of examples that ships stays on the same spot with an enemy bomber above just waiting to get sunked. The sips should try to get away since, needless to say, no one would wait for the next bomb in real life.

Strange, for me in most cases the British ships do move out of sight, are you playing on General or Field Marshal?

3. Forts: The fort in Brest Litovsk is only possible to crack with railroad artillery. I know that this fort actually held out for a month, but should not Pioneers have a chance to score some hits on it? I thougth that that was the purpose of the Pioneers?

Pioneers have a "fort killer" bonus that gives them +5 Hard Attack, quite useful against normal Forts, but at the face of 30 Close Defence that the Brest Fortress has it's somewhat ineffectual.
Not a easy way around this, at least not without making the Brest fortress much easier to kill.

4. Soviet fighers: By the end of 1941 only 500 Yakovlev fighters where built. They should thus not turn up at Barbarossa. The main Soviet figher then was Polikarpov I-16 which is also in the game. Even though this was a great fighter it seems too strong compared to German Messerschmitts and the fact that many planes where destroyed on the airfields a fact not depicted in this game. To make things more historical there should be more but weaker Soviet planes and as stated before more infantry. This will also force the gamer to use different approaches depending on the enemy. As of now, the different nations seems rather similar. (I have only played the campaign)

There aren't any Yaks in Barbarossa, the Soviets have a fleet of Polikarpovs and Mig-3s.
The Soviet player can potentially purchase Yak-1s (and they were present on the Eastern Front in June 1941), but the AI never does this.

5. Oscarsborg fortress: This fortress outside Oslo sank the Blucher. The distance where less than 1000 yards and the topography is such that it is impossible to fire much longer distances. Of course in the game this fort might depict several forts in the Oslo Fjord but I can't see how the game will be less fun if the firing range where reduced to a more realistic level.

The fort has a range of 3, same as towed artillery. Wouldn't make much sense to make the fort have a shorter range than your standard 10.5cm artillery.'
Especially as Oscarsborg was equipped with 3 28cm Coastal artillery pieces.

Also since PzC can't model multiple weapon systems yet, the torpedo battery isn't accounted for realistically.
I'd assume it was wrapped into the overall attack values of the fort.

6. Cavalry seems seriously overpowered. The best way to deal with a cav. unit seems to be with another cav. unit. In WW2 these units was obsolete and thus these units would do better not to exsist, alternatively be much weaker but have a scouting capability like Recon units.

I'm confused as what would give you this impression.
Soviet Cavalry is terrible. Soft Attack 4, Ground Defence 3, Initiative 2, Close Defence 2.
Polish Cavalry has 1 higher SA, 1 higher Initiative, GD and CD remain the same.

Compared to Pioneers: SA 5, GD 8, Init 2, CD 2.
I guess if you're attacking a city with standard Wehrmacht Infantry (SA 4, GD 8, Init 2, CD 2) then you're at a disadvantage vs the Polish Cavalry.
But you shouldn't attack entrenched units in the first place, at least without suppressing them with artillery fire first.

Great game!

Agreed!

What does DLC stand for? Could not find it on the net...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content

[Tordenskjold]

1. Ship guns: It seems very odd that a ship can actually harm a unit hidden in the mountains 150 kilometers away. At least! It is realistic with long range in sea battles, but not in shore bombardement. I assume a range of 1 hex should depict what really happened historically.

The problem here is that a single hex can represent different sizes, depending on the map.
however I'm not sure which maps you have issues with.
For example in Sea Lion your ships are barely in range of London at the mouth of the Thames. (which in reality is ~30 miles from the sea), and as German naval guns of the era had a effective range of 22 miles(35km), it's not stretching the reality too far.

I see the problem. I was referring to the Norway scenario.

2. UK ships: I have seen a lot of examples that ships stays on the same spot with an enemy bomber above just waiting to get sunked. The sips should try to get away since, needless to say, no one would wait for the next bomb in real life.

Strange, for me in most cases the British ships do move out of sight, are you playing on General or Field Marshal?

I play on Colonel level with all options on. Several times the ships in Trondheim fjord has stayed on the same spots for up to 3 turns.

3. Forts: The fort in Brest Litovsk is only possible to crack with railroad artillery. I know that this fort actually held out for a month, but should not Pioneers have a chance to score some hits on it? I thougth that that was the purpose of the Pioneers?

Pioneers have a "fort killer" bonus that gives them +5 Hard Attack, quite useful against normal Forts, but at the face of 30 Close Defence that the Brest Fortress has it's somewhat ineffectual.
Not a easy way around this, at least not without making the Brest fortress much easier to kill.

I agree. In my opinion it should be easier to kill. Close to impossible to achieve a Major in this scenario because of Brest-Litovsk but on the other hand, that might be the idea?

4. Soviet fighers: By the end of 1941 only 500 Yakovlev fighters where built. They should thus not turn up at Barbarossa. The main Soviet figher then was Polikarpov I-16 which is also in the game. Even though this was a great fighter it seems too strong compared to German Messerschmitts and the fact that many planes where destroyed on the airfields a fact not depicted in this game. To make things more historical there should be more but weaker Soviet planes and as stated before more infantry. This will also force the gamer to use different approaches depending on the enemy. As of now, the different nations seems rather similar. (I have only played the campaign)

There aren't any Yaks in Barbarossa, the Soviets have a fleet of Polikarpovs and Mig-3s.
The Soviet player can potentially purchase Yak-1s (and they were present on the Eastern Front in June 1941), but the AI never does this.

You seem to know your history well. But, according to my book, the Mig3 was no match for the Luftwaffe. Contrary to my gaming experience. So they might be a little to strong perhaps?

5. Oscarsborg fortress: This fortress outside Oslo sank the Blucher. The distance where less than 1000 yards and the topography is such that it is impossible to fire much longer distances. Of course in the game this fort might depict several forts in the Oslo Fjord but I can't see how the game will be less fun if the firing range where reduced to a more realistic level.

The fort has a range of 3, same as towed artillery. Wouldn't make much sense to make the fort have a shorter range than your standard 10.5cm artillery.'
Especially as Oscarsborg was equipped with 3 28cm Coastal artillery pieces.

Also since PzC can't model multiple weapon systems yet, the torpedo battery isn't accounted for realistically.
I'd assume it was wrapped into the overall attack values of the fort.

I see your point.

6. Cavalry seems seriously overpowered. The best way to deal with a cav. unit seems to be with another cav. unit. In WW2 these units was obsolete and thus these units would do better not to exsist, alternatively be much weaker but have a scouting capability like Recon units.

I'm confused as what would give you this impression.
Soviet Cavalry is terrible. Soft Attack 4, Ground Defence 3, Initiative 2, Close Defence 2.
Polish Cavalry has 1 higher SA, 1 higher Initiative, GD and CD remain the same.
Compared to Pioneers: SA 5, GD 8, Init 2, CD 2.
I guess if you're attacking a city with standard Wehrmacht Infantry (SA 4, GD 8, Init 2, CD 2) then you're at a disadvantage vs the Polish Cavalry.
But you shouldn't attack entrenched units in the first place, at least without suppressing them with artillery fire first.

I have tried to kill Soviet cavalry mostly outsde cities with Stuka, Fighters, Infantry and soften them up with artillery but the best way seem to be with another cavalry unit. So at least it seem to have an overpowered defence.

Great game!

Agreed!

What does DLC stand for? Could not find it on the net...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content

[Fimconte]

I see the problem. I was referring to the Norway scenario.

I see your point, Norway is on a much larger scale.
But I think the problem is that they'd have to create new units with lower range for those maps.

I play on Colonel level with all options on. Several times the ships in Trondheim fjord has stayed on the same spots for up to 3 turns.[/b]

That could be part of the issue, since the AI is somewhat limited below General difficulty level.

3. Forts: The fort in Brest Litovsk is only possible to crack with railroad artillery. I know that this fort actually held out for a month, but should not Pioneers have a chance to score some hits on it? I thougth that that was the purpose of the Pioneers?

Don't engage the fort with a attack over the river, circle around from the top and after you clear most of the troops leave only the Karl-Gerät and a Pioneer+Artillery to clear it, while the rest of your forces push on.
Also for a quick victory you need to secure Polotsk with a Paratrooper drop or fast tank rush from the top.

I have tried to kill Soviet cavalry mostly outsde cities with Stuka, Fighters, Infantry and soften them up with artillery but the best way seem to be with another cavalry unit. So at least it seem to have an overpowered defence.

Strange, I've never had a problem with them.
Their Close Defence (used when the defending unit is in close terrain, ie. hills, forest, cities) is only 2, so they should be on a equal footing with other Infantry.
Perhaps they were heavily entrenched that even after multiple attacks they had 4+ entrenchment left?
Which could indicate their high resistance.

[kjeld111]

5. Oscarsborg fortress: This fortress outside Oslo sank the Blucher. The distance where less than 1000 yards and the topography is such that it is impossible to fire much longer distances. Of course in the game this fort might depict several forts in the Oslo Fjord but I can't see how the game will be less fun if the firing range where reduced to a more realistic level.


http://www.7idgaming.de/attachment.php? ... 1319749066

From the just recently released press coverage of the DLC !

[Tordenskjold]

Looks promising! This game is about to steal all my leisure time till Christmas and beyond I am afraid

[Tordenskjold]

Thanks alot Fimconte, for all your answers

Now I have played 30 hours more and have found out that it takes a while to become an expert in this but now it seems Colonel is too easy! Who would have thougth that a week ago

I get more and more impressed by this game. The perfect balanced scenarios, the awesome number of historical units units. Everything put together gives a wonderfull challenge both strategic and tactical. This is a masterpiece!!!

I can't wait to get back to the game

[doc99]

I would like to see the recon issue more fully developed to the point of having a unit on the battalion level choose to sacrfice time[one turn] to recon[with said unit having a recon value] a site before movement vs simply moving into the site quickly

Currently the concept of a seperate recon vehecle doing the spotting really dosen't work on the given scale of the game