Some criticism: Maps too small, representation of air units

[ferokapo]

After aving read almost exclusively praise on PanzerCorps, I thought I'd offer some criticism to keep you guys awake

I am a 5-Star-Series veteran, having played them all, and I am in the middle of DLC 40 of PanzerCorps. I recognize that you have improved the concept and game mechanics with PanzerCorps in various ways. However, there are two issues that really bother me and make me wonder whether I actually want to continue playing PanzerCorps in its current form:

1. The representation of air units is poor. It is almost identical to the 5-Star-Series, and that isn't something good (glad that you have gotten rid of the ZOC for air units - "capturing" enemy air units by placing at least two friendly ones next to them was the worst thing of it all). Why didn't you implement the system of People's General, which is much more realistic? Or at least some system were the air units operate from airbases and don't have to move over enemy units to attack them? I guess it's impossible to do anything about it, since it's hard-coded. Just saying in case you are already coding a sequel...

2. The size of the maps is way too small. The old 5-Star-Series had the problem that the scale varied ridiculously between scenarios, which isn't a good thing, either. But there were a lot of maps where you actually had to make some strategic decisions. Just look at the Moscow maps! Placing your units and the start and deciding on their path of advance really makes a huge difference. In PanzerCorps, the maps are so small (at least the ones I had a look at) that it does not matter much where you place your units, and where you advance. Within two or three turns, you can throw your units from one end of the map to the other. On a minor side note, this is also annoying because the spotting range of the recon units is comparatively low, and my frontline units get hammered constantly by enemy counter attacks that come from all over the place (playing on Field Marshall, by the way, and taking a cautious approach). Because the AI can do the same as me: throw their units across the map within one turn. I opened the scenario editor and noticed that MUCH larger maps are possible, so I am wondering whether those will be coming in official releases, or whether I have to use mods?

I must admit that after having played through most of DLC 39 and 40, while I enjoyed the various campaign objectives and hero bonuses etc immensely, I feel tempted to fire up that old PanzerGeneral or PacificGeneral instead of continuing.

Cheers,

e.

[dragos]

I would add:

Some heroes bonuses are ridiculous. Plus to Attack/Defense, Spotting or Initiative is OK, but +1 to movement or +1 to range how do they achieve? Suddenly KingTigers becomes agile and they stretch the barrel of the guns to increase the range? More reasonable traits could be Logistic Wizard (reduced fuel consumption) or Marksman for artillery (part of suppression points turns into kills) or something that increases the rate of fire.

[Linai]

because this game is a panzer general remake
peoples general was AWFUL
and map size in panzer corps is just right just big enough to move around, but small enough to keep action fast and FUN.
running out of fuel more often than shooting is just plain boring

[bebro]

I'm all for improving, but personally didn't like the air model in People's General.

I agree somewhat with the maps being quite small, at least in a number of vanilla campaign scns.

[b52pilot1]

I agree with bebro -- the air combat in People's General was weak. I do not recommend making any changes to the current PanzerCorps format!

[Aloo]

I would add:

Some heroes bonuses are ridiculous. Plus to Attack/Defense, Spotting or Initiative is OK, but +1 to movement or +1 to range how do they achieve?

In a campaign I just finished I had a king tiger with two +1 move heroes It was as fast as a panther.

[El_Condoro]

Likewise, I didn't like the PeG air combat model. I would like a couple of changes to the PzC air model but it's not really important: force a return to the nearest base in snow/rain *or* prevent <u>any</u> spotting during those weather conditions. Otherwise, I think it works really well currently.

[ferokapo]

Well, it seems I am more or less alone with my critique. That doesn't bother me, I expected it after reading through the fora and reviews, although I must admit that I had hoped for some better counter arguments than "shooting is FUN, refueling is BORING" or "didn't like PeG's air combat system" or "it's a remake".

I mean, if for you supply gets in the way of the action, just turn it off, right? That's no argument against bigger maps that leave some strategic decisions to the player.

And when you do a remake, why not improve the original whereever possible? While I can whirl around my tank armies like nothing, my planes cannot cross the small maps within in single turn. There is no interception capability to speak of, etc. etc.

Also, I mentioned that PeG's air combat system is not the only option. A very simple solution for a better air combat system that is compatible with the current game mechanics would be to allow air units to stay on airfields only, but giving them a long range and recon type movement. Like this, they could take off, attack a unit, and then would have to land on any airstrip within their remaining range. If you want fighters to be able to intercept, simply don't move them that turn. You would need a few more airfields to accomodate the air units, resulting in larger maps, though...

I guess in the end it depends on what type of game you want to play. I for my part will probably have to stay with the likes of CEAW and WW2 mods for PacGen.

[bebro]

Well, it seems I am more or less alone with my critique. That doesn't bother me, I expected it after reading through the fora and reviews, although I must admit that I had hoped for some better counter arguments than "shooting is FUN, refueling is BORING" or "didn't like PeG's air combat system" or "it's a remake".

Re the air model: "It is almost identical to the 5-Star-Series, and that isn't something good" isn't exactly an overwhelming argument either It's also debatable whether PeGs model was really "much more realistic".

IMO both systems have pros and cons. For example in PG/PzC I can escort bombers with fighters, which fire on attacking enemy planes. I don't remember something similar PeG, since it would have been difficult to implement there. I do remember I could fly a plane over an hex to provide cover for the turn there - mostly with the result that the AI was ganging up all its AA to take that plane out.

PeG's system got rid of having air units (except helis IIRC) progressing and improving in your core, which is IMO one of the best parts of the whole PG series. I remember the "air units" there could to get experience, but using overstrength or upgrading them was IIRC outside the player's control. Why only limit this to land units?

I also don't understand the per se criticism on aircraft moving over enemy units to attack - isn't that what bombers were doing in reality (unless we talk strafing or missile use, but in WW2 it's mostly lvl or dive-bombing)?

[ferokapo]

Well, it seems I am more or less alone with my critique. That doesn't bother me, I expected it after reading through the fora and reviews, although I must admit that I had hoped for some better counter arguments than "shooting is FUN, refueling is BORING" or "didn't like PeG's air combat system" or "it's a remake".

Re the air model: "It is almost identical to the 5-Star-Series, and that isn't something good" isn't exactly an overwhelming argument either It's also debatable whether PeGs model was really "much more realistic".

IMO both systems have pros and cons. For example in PG/PzC I can escort bombers with fighters, which fire on attacking enemy planes. I don't remember something similar PeG, since it would have been difficult to implement there. I do remember I could fly a plane over an hex to provide cover for the turn there - mostly with the result that the AI was ganging up all its AA to take that plane out.

PeG's system got rid of having air units (except helis IIRC) progressing and improving in your core, which is IMO one of the best parts of the whole PG series. I remember the "air units" there could to get experience, but using overstrength or upgrading them was IIRC outside the player's control. Why only limit this to land units?

I also don't understand the per se criticism on aircraft moving over enemy units to attack - isn't that what bombers were doing in reality (unless we talk strafing or missile use, but in WW2 it's mostly lvl or dive-bombing)?

Well, you're right in that I could have been more elaborate in my criticism on the air combat system, but I thought that it's pretty obvious what is unrealistic (and my assumption that there's nothing to be done about it in the current game anyway).

I never claimed that the PeG system is optimal, just that it is more realistic (btw, you "escort" your air force by spending resources on an abstract air superiority value, IIRC). It still suffers from the same problem in that you shouldn't treat helicopters like ground units.

Air units do not move or fight like ground units, they are more flexible in the sense that they can move MUCH greater distances, yet they are more inflexible in that they have to rely on airfields. Treating air and ground units exactly the same is bad game design, period (nevermind that they move on the first floor, as compared to the ground floor of, well, ground units). Unfortunately, I have made the mistake of writing "to move over enemy units to attack them", when I meant "to stay over enemy units to attack them". Of course they have to move over them. But they don't hover there, they return to an airfield after every attack.

I have tried to sketch a system that is much more realistic, yet uses basically the same game mechanics. I'm not saying it's the non-plus-ultra, and I'm sure there are other alternatives around. I just had hoped that a remake would address one of the biggest shortcomings of the original game. Since no one else seems to mind, neither players nor critics, fine, I guess it's just little old me.

[Lamont]

I do agree with Eisenkopf about the map size. In a way PzC loses out on the strategic level becouse of this (wich is an element I love). Sure it can differ somewhat how you deploy but not all that much wich is a shame. Bigger maps allow for different playthroughs and for me personally great replayability. Of course there should be small maps to where everything is all out action but I wish for a bit more strategic challange too.

On another note: Not sure why, but it bothers me a little not knowing if I have div, Brigades, regiments or bat's out there.
I try to make the bat's out of everything to be able to grasp it better. Not a major thing but it still bothers me.
I know it would probably mean a lot of tweaking with maps etc, still would've loved a bat size type of game.

Love the game though

[Razz1]

Many of us agree about map size. It was brought up several times in Beta.

I myself like the bigger maps.

Give room to move and force the player to think.

Bigger maps are much better in MP.

[billmv44]

Interesting post regarding the air units. I agree, it's not the most realistic system. However, this is Panzer Corps and I play the game for the ground combat simulations. An air component is necessary, but doesn't have to be perfect for me to enjoy the game play. The ground combat is so much improved over PG/PGII/PeG. That being said, I won't turn my nose up at improvements in this area.

[boredatwork]

Also, I mentioned that PeG's air combat system is not the only option. A very simple solution for a better air combat system that is compatible with the current game mechanics would be to allow air units to stay on airfields only, but giving them a long range and recon type movement. Like this, they could take off, attack a unit, and then would have to land on any airstrip within their remaining range...

I also was not a fan of the current air system.

Though I liked the PeG system, which could have easily been modified to allow player owned air units that gained experience as opposed to generic aircraft points to fly the mission - it would only work in scenarios small enough for the air assets to be believably located off map - for example the DLC. With larger scenarios possible with the system, like all of Germany, realistically they would need to be represented in such a way that airfield control becomes important.

The system you propose sounds be like Civ2's air movement which IIRC was very tedious - having to "fly" units out and back from their base every turn.

What I was pushing for in Beta was something along the lines of Civ4's air mechanics where planes were based on airfields but "flew" missions (bombing, ground attack, recon, rebase, CAP) within their combat radius - in effect turning planes into stationary long range artillery (bombers) OR Air Defense units with a huge defensive radius (fighters).

[Kerensky]

Everyone has their own idea of the ideal system (not just for air units).
Even the developers, believe it or not.

As for map size, it was decided a long time ago to compress maps sizes for more focused and faster paced game play. If someone has the itch for immense maps sizes, they're more than free to fire up the editor and create content to their heart's content.