Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
I want to introduce an discussion, how a future tactical turn based game could (or should) look.
In principle - I love Panzer Corps. But despite that, of course there are some things I would like to see in a sequel of this fantastic game. And I hope, that others will share their visions about the potential evolution of Panzer Corps , that will help Lordz Studio to know, how a (at the moment) fictional sequel could look.
So, for the start some points I would love to see in a sequel:
1. More complexity in layers - a lesson I have learned from Advanced Strategic Command (ASC), a german F2P-Game based on Battle Isle. The graphics and, more important, the AI, is not comparable to PzC, but there you can find about 7 layers: diving, periscope depth, (surface,ground), low-, medium- and high-altitude flight, orbit). You can decide to attack with your bombers from medium- or low altitude (second at higher risk but more damage to the enemy). You have to decide, if our submarine should go on periscope depth to attack a convoi at danger of a destroyer counter attack.
2. Recon depends on enemy units and territory - infantry in wood should be much harder to detect than tanks rushing through plains. Any unit has a recon and a stealth value. No fog of war, therefor for every hex a small icon displaying the depth of recon - is it higher than an enemy stealth value, the unit is shown.
3. Higher impact radius of units - I would prefer smaller hexes, but more possibility to control the area around them for more or less all units, higher range for artillery.
4. More micromanagement on the battlefield - I want munition and fuel transporter. Another nice idea from ASC: different kinds of munition. Fighters with a single bomb have to decide to use it on infantry or wait for a tank. Or like in 2) - to use its marsh missiles, < submarine has to be at periscope depth with greater risk to be attacked by surface ships.
5. Predictable unit evolution - at the moment units can become unbelievable strong by war heroes (88 flak with movement, artillery with range). Unfortunately if you stick to wrong heroes, the units have hardly any benefit (recon for artillery). Here I would implement a micro system of different choices for every experience star giving such boni into player's hands.
6. more complex wheater effects - rain should reduce interceptor abilities but not completely forbid them. Level bombers should hardly affected by wheather, similar to FlaK units.
7. Balancing the core - I mentioned it in another thread. At the moment if you take care of your core, the campaigns become ridiculous easy in later times. I would suggest, that core units can not be completely destroyed, so every player has a similar amount of experienced core units (and therefor scenarios can be more balanced on the edge). Another idea would be, that you have to maintain your core with prestige - bigger core costs more prestige. And I would add a more divers deploying mechanism - for example separated for air-, sea- and ground units.
8. Better support for modding - if I see, what crazy genious mods have been published for CivIV - that is a great way to bind players for years (and make them buying every addon). I would love a Star Wars- or Game of Throne-mod but therefor it is maybe not enough to change units and/or terrain.
9. Something maybe will dramatically change the game: parallele turns - every unit has its own counter after move/attack until the next move/attack can be done. All players are playing at the same time - I am not sure if I would love this feature, but it could be an option to improve multiplayer games (and it should be optional - many players will not like it).
... to be continued ...
Excuse my english and greetings,
UlleK
In principle - I love Panzer Corps. But despite that, of course there are some things I would like to see in a sequel of this fantastic game. And I hope, that others will share their visions about the potential evolution of Panzer Corps , that will help Lordz Studio to know, how a (at the moment) fictional sequel could look.
So, for the start some points I would love to see in a sequel:
1. More complexity in layers - a lesson I have learned from Advanced Strategic Command (ASC), a german F2P-Game based on Battle Isle. The graphics and, more important, the AI, is not comparable to PzC, but there you can find about 7 layers: diving, periscope depth, (surface,ground), low-, medium- and high-altitude flight, orbit). You can decide to attack with your bombers from medium- or low altitude (second at higher risk but more damage to the enemy). You have to decide, if our submarine should go on periscope depth to attack a convoi at danger of a destroyer counter attack.
2. Recon depends on enemy units and territory - infantry in wood should be much harder to detect than tanks rushing through plains. Any unit has a recon and a stealth value. No fog of war, therefor for every hex a small icon displaying the depth of recon - is it higher than an enemy stealth value, the unit is shown.
3. Higher impact radius of units - I would prefer smaller hexes, but more possibility to control the area around them for more or less all units, higher range for artillery.
4. More micromanagement on the battlefield - I want munition and fuel transporter. Another nice idea from ASC: different kinds of munition. Fighters with a single bomb have to decide to use it on infantry or wait for a tank. Or like in 2) - to use its marsh missiles, < submarine has to be at periscope depth with greater risk to be attacked by surface ships.
5. Predictable unit evolution - at the moment units can become unbelievable strong by war heroes (88 flak with movement, artillery with range). Unfortunately if you stick to wrong heroes, the units have hardly any benefit (recon for artillery). Here I would implement a micro system of different choices for every experience star giving such boni into player's hands.
6. more complex wheater effects - rain should reduce interceptor abilities but not completely forbid them. Level bombers should hardly affected by wheather, similar to FlaK units.
7. Balancing the core - I mentioned it in another thread. At the moment if you take care of your core, the campaigns become ridiculous easy in later times. I would suggest, that core units can not be completely destroyed, so every player has a similar amount of experienced core units (and therefor scenarios can be more balanced on the edge). Another idea would be, that you have to maintain your core with prestige - bigger core costs more prestige. And I would add a more divers deploying mechanism - for example separated for air-, sea- and ground units.
8. Better support for modding - if I see, what crazy genious mods have been published for CivIV - that is a great way to bind players for years (and make them buying every addon). I would love a Star Wars- or Game of Throne-mod but therefor it is maybe not enough to change units and/or terrain.
9. Something maybe will dramatically change the game: parallele turns - every unit has its own counter after move/attack until the next move/attack can be done. All players are playing at the same time - I am not sure if I would love this feature, but it could be an option to improve multiplayer games (and it should be optional - many players will not like it).
... to be continued ...
Excuse my english and greetings,
UlleK
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
I'd love to see PZC use the CIV 5 engine
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Great suggestions, but save them for the remake of Steel Panthers 

Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Hey now!soldier wrote:Great suggestions, but save them for the remake of Steel Panthers
Enjoy what you have...

Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
While some changes and evolution would be nice i personally think some of your ideas just do not fit into Panzer Corps or are only add unnecessary complicity.
1. I don't know about that one. Sounds like it adds a lot micromanagement for to less gain. Keep it simple was always a big strength of Panzer General and Panzer Cops as its "spiritual successor".
2. This is an interesting idea imho and it sounds like it could add some nice twist to the game but again i am not sure if it fits within the scope of PC.
3. I don't really understand what you mean with this one so can't comment on this.
4. Way to much mirco-management for my personal liking. In big scenarios with 40+ units it becomes a nightmare and the turns will take forever. I see myself playing PC as a commander leading the army and they just tell their troop where to attack. The details are handled by them. You do not tell your pilots which bombs to use where and when. They should know that, even better then you.
5. I agree the current system is a bit to random. Giving the player a totally free choice on the other hand is a bit pointless as then almost everyone will chose the same thing for the same type of units. All recons will get +spoting, all artillery will get +range.
6. This doesn't sounds more complex just different. I could live with a change like that but i don't have any problem with the current system either.
7. A better core management system would be indeed great but it needs to be very throughly examined and tuned. It easy to make it even worse with some changes that may look like an improvement at first.
8. Well better moding support is always good.
9. I don't see this working at all. At least not without totally changing PC into a different kind of game.
1. I don't know about that one. Sounds like it adds a lot micromanagement for to less gain. Keep it simple was always a big strength of Panzer General and Panzer Cops as its "spiritual successor".
2. This is an interesting idea imho and it sounds like it could add some nice twist to the game but again i am not sure if it fits within the scope of PC.
3. I don't really understand what you mean with this one so can't comment on this.
4. Way to much mirco-management for my personal liking. In big scenarios with 40+ units it becomes a nightmare and the turns will take forever. I see myself playing PC as a commander leading the army and they just tell their troop where to attack. The details are handled by them. You do not tell your pilots which bombs to use where and when. They should know that, even better then you.
5. I agree the current system is a bit to random. Giving the player a totally free choice on the other hand is a bit pointless as then almost everyone will chose the same thing for the same type of units. All recons will get +spoting, all artillery will get +range.
6. This doesn't sounds more complex just different. I could live with a change like that but i don't have any problem with the current system either.
7. A better core management system would be indeed great but it needs to be very throughly examined and tuned. It easy to make it even worse with some changes that may look like an improvement at first.
8. Well better moding support is always good.
9. I don't see this working at all. At least not without totally changing PC into a different kind of game.
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Thanks at Tarrak for the detailed reply.
I think, it would just add more units with a "switch"-mechanism like the german 88 flak - a diving submarine has other possibilities than one on periscope depth. I would not term this micromanagement.Tarrak wrote: 1. I don't know about that one. Sounds like it adds a lot micromanagement for to less gain. Keep it simple was always a big strength of Panzer General and Panzer Cops as its "spiritual successor".
At the moment units have a zone of control and that is it. I would test more interactions at the front (and probably you would not like it - more complexity).Tarrak wrote:3. I don't really understand what you mean with this one so can't comment on this.
Of course this would not work. I was thinking of completely new bonus system with of course only useful boni making it a hard decision (for example better spotting vs. better stealth for recon units).Tarrak wrote:5. I agree the current system is a bit to random. Giving the player a totally free choice on the other hand is a bit pointless as then almost everyone will chose the same thing for the same type of units. All recons will get +spoting, all artillery will get +range.
In CivIV I was sceptical about a similar system, too. But the system worked quite nice - and since that CivIV is our favorite for LAN partys. I'm not sure if it will work for PzC, but I would give it a chance.Tarrak wrote:9. I don't see this working at all. At least not without totally changing PC into a different kind of game.
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Ok you are probably right it would not be that bad from micromanagent point of view. I even see the benefits of the idea now but i am still not sure if it would not break the wonderful simplicity of PC and PG which is one of the strong sides of the game. I am mostly afraid of the AI having even more problems using units properly with all the added options, it is already a bit overstrained at timesUlleK wrote:Thanks at Tarrak for the detailed reply.I think, it would just add more units with a "switch"-mechanism like the german 88 flak - a diving submarine has other possibilities than one on periscope depth. I would not term this micromanagement.Tarrak wrote: 1. I don't know about that one. Sounds like it adds a lot micromanagement for to less gain. Keep it simple was always a big strength of Panzer General and Panzer Cops as its "spiritual successor".

Ok i understand now but i think you are misunderstanding me. I am not generally against more complexity. I just want to see the advantages of it beside adding a few more buttons to press. This idea is actually quite decent. If done correctly it could add a lot of tactical depth without to much unnecessary burden. Especially some better way of maintaining a front line would be in my opinion really beneficial.At the moment units have a zone of control and that is it. I would test more interactions at the front (and probably you would not like it - more complexity).Tarrak wrote:3. I don't really understand what you mean with this one so can't comment on this.
This was exactly what i meant. The system would have to be replaced with something totally new but yes the idea you seems to me for example like a good start.Of course this would not work. I was thinking of completely new bonus system with of course only useful boni making it a hard decision (for example better spotting vs. better stealth for recon units).Tarrak wrote:5. I agree the current system is a bit to random. Giving the player a totally free choice on the other hand is a bit pointless as then almost everyone will chose the same thing for the same type of units. All recons will get +spoting, all artillery will get +range.
[/quote]In CivIV I was sceptical about a similar system, too. But the system worked quite nice - and since that CivIV is our favorite for LAN partys. I'm not sure if it will work for PzC, but I would give it a chance.Tarrak wrote:9. I don't see this working at all. At least not without totally changing PC into a different kind of game.
I know it is working in Civilization but the scope of Civ is a bit different then in PC. Imho Civ is more about managing your whole empire, the cities, the research, the production, the diplomacy. The fight is smaller part of it. PC is all about the tactical fight with your units. I just remain sceptical that this system will work for PC and i fail to see the gain. You still have to wait until you opponent finish his move. Yes the turn around time may be shorter but it will require both (or maybe even more players) to be online at same time. The current system allows you playing without actually having to meet at same time. Both got advantages and disadvantages.
But the last paragraph reminded me about something i would wish for PC 2.0: Support for more then two players in MP something like X vs X games or maybe even a chaos games with X players just attacking whoever they like without teams and a coop campaign

Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
I really don't understand your points, as it seems what you really want is a totally different game called "Panzer Corps 2". PC is close to perfect the way it is.
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Healthy discussions on the future of the game, good stuff.
Here’s my 2c worth.
Make the maps a little larger and apply more range to weapon type’s, examples:
Tanks depending on type have ranged attacks, after all a Tiger 1 could take out a Sherman at 2000m but a Sherman had to engage at <800m and from the side or flank.
Artillery (depending on type again) has greater range and can supply cover fire from range ie the unit does not have to be directly adjacent to the arty to receive support fire just under its halo of range.
A Units defensive strength degrades depends on which side of the hex the attack comes from.
Example you have a tank and at the end of your movement phase you have an alignment setting on the hex, and you choose to align the front (where the armour is strongest to the east) if it is then attacked from that direction it defends at its hardest level say 10, if its attacked from the North East or SE defence is at 8, N or S 6, NW or SW 4, W 2 as this means the unit has been flanked.
I think this would lead to more tactical play on the battle field. Ummm how do I organise and attack on the flank of that Tiger with my T34, or how do I set up my defence to stop a flank attack.
Other ideas are Artillery could fire a smoke barrage to obscure troop movement.
Subs have the ability to dive which might further aid the ability to evade attacks and reduces their visibility to destroys, and also their field of vision but would allow them to sneak up on convoys or battleships.
Run Silent Run Deep
Here’s my 2c worth.
Make the maps a little larger and apply more range to weapon type’s, examples:
Tanks depending on type have ranged attacks, after all a Tiger 1 could take out a Sherman at 2000m but a Sherman had to engage at <800m and from the side or flank.
Artillery (depending on type again) has greater range and can supply cover fire from range ie the unit does not have to be directly adjacent to the arty to receive support fire just under its halo of range.
A Units defensive strength degrades depends on which side of the hex the attack comes from.
Example you have a tank and at the end of your movement phase you have an alignment setting on the hex, and you choose to align the front (where the armour is strongest to the east) if it is then attacked from that direction it defends at its hardest level say 10, if its attacked from the North East or SE defence is at 8, N or S 6, NW or SW 4, W 2 as this means the unit has been flanked.
I think this would lead to more tactical play on the battle field. Ummm how do I organise and attack on the flank of that Tiger with my T34, or how do I set up my defence to stop a flank attack.
Other ideas are Artillery could fire a smoke barrage to obscure troop movement.
Subs have the ability to dive which might further aid the ability to evade attacks and reduces their visibility to destroys, and also their field of vision but would allow them to sneak up on convoys or battleships.
Run Silent Run Deep

Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
From the OP, I think layers (1) are really something for a new game - of course it says PzC 2.0 but I have my doubts this will be included in any PzC game/DLC/exp in the foreseeable future.
I think there are some nice ideas about recon (2), wheather (6) and some more, but some things I personally would hate to see, esp. ammo and fuel transporters (4). IMO this is complexity for complexity's sake, only to achieve something that you do now by simply pressing the supply button. Of course it could add some more interesting elements (like protecting said ammo/fuel TPs), but in the end it adds a whole lot of MM for little gain.
Personally I'd certainly like to see some more complexity, but not this particular proposal. For example I like the idea about submarines, but would leave it to submerged/surfaced modes - this could be done now with unit switches, btw.
More modding stuff as in (8) is always welcome of course, and I look forward to AK for this. Though I wouldn't say mods like SW, GoT etc. are impossible now...depends what you want to do exactly of course...
I think there are some nice ideas about recon (2), wheather (6) and some more, but some things I personally would hate to see, esp. ammo and fuel transporters (4). IMO this is complexity for complexity's sake, only to achieve something that you do now by simply pressing the supply button. Of course it could add some more interesting elements (like protecting said ammo/fuel TPs), but in the end it adds a whole lot of MM for little gain.
Personally I'd certainly like to see some more complexity, but not this particular proposal. For example I like the idea about submarines, but would leave it to submerged/surfaced modes - this could be done now with unit switches, btw.
More modding stuff as in (8) is always welcome of course, and I look forward to AK for this. Though I wouldn't say mods like SW, GoT etc. are impossible now...depends what you want to do exactly of course...
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Layers: If AA, air-to-ground attack, and aircraft ground defense values were divided into low and high altitude, that would add a very meaningful level of rocks-and-scissors strategy without significantly increasing game complexity from the player's perspective. Aircraft could "switch" between high and low altitude. At low altitude, better ground attack but more vulnerability to light AA. At high altitude, poorer ground attack and more vulnerability to heavy AA, but much less vulnerability to light AA. The resulting incentive to have both light and heavy AA would introduce interesting new force composition choices.
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
I want to second what someone said before, sounds more like Steel Panthers 2012 to me.
I don't look for major changes of the core game and therefore really don't need or want a Panzer Corps 2.0.
I would rather love some UI improvements and fixes and better window mode and perhaps even a tablet/touch screen version of Panzer Corps. Would like to play it on my Galaxy Note for instance!
This were interesting suggestions nevertheless.
I don't look for major changes of the core game and therefore really don't need or want a Panzer Corps 2.0.
I would rather love some UI improvements and fixes and better window mode and perhaps even a tablet/touch screen version of Panzer Corps. Would like to play it on my Galaxy Note for instance!

This were interesting suggestions nevertheless.
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Yes most of these suggestions are actual features of the steel panthers game. You could include them PzC 2 but it would be way different
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 818
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:17 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
Sometimes you need to be careful what you ask for, as occasionally we get given the requested changes and then we realize why they were not there in the first place.
Wargamers often want more detail than is required and more complexity than is of any real use.
Not sure about the Steel Panthers comments, it is a tactical simulation something that Panzer Corps isn't. I'd love for someone to remake Steel Panthers as if the only objective was to give us Steel Panthers AGAIN, but with no need to be beholding to an owner of old code.
Panzer Corps, it isn't perfect, but then Steel Panthers wasn't either. The Long Campaigns in Steel Panthers were no challenge at all if you simply picked unhistorical mixes of the ideal gear. A line of 88s backed but plenty of 150 mm arty solved almost everything. The Mega Campaigns though, that was something else. You didn't get to cherry pick the perfect choices. That's what is wrong with Panzer Corps, too many cases where too much history is discarded in favour of ONLY picking the perfect gear.
Wargamers often want more detail than is required and more complexity than is of any real use.
Not sure about the Steel Panthers comments, it is a tactical simulation something that Panzer Corps isn't. I'd love for someone to remake Steel Panthers as if the only objective was to give us Steel Panthers AGAIN, but with no need to be beholding to an owner of old code.
Panzer Corps, it isn't perfect, but then Steel Panthers wasn't either. The Long Campaigns in Steel Panthers were no challenge at all if you simply picked unhistorical mixes of the ideal gear. A line of 88s backed but plenty of 150 mm arty solved almost everything. The Mega Campaigns though, that was something else. You didn't get to cherry pick the perfect choices. That's what is wrong with Panzer Corps, too many cases where too much history is discarded in favour of ONLY picking the perfect gear.
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
I'm kinda chuckling while I'm reading this thread. I think we inevitably start to combine those features of other great games we have played into a wish list of things we'd like to see in the one being discussed. Happens on every Forum I read when it comes to new versions.
Let me offer a couple of ideas that I think would be relatively easy to code, and would be nice improvements. I'm speaking for the multi-player realm on this subject.
1. After my opponent's turn, I'd like to be able to replay his moves again. I understand the obvious problems invoked with cheating, but if the replay function were made unusable after I move my first unit, that should answer that problem. There's too many times that I miss a unit buzzing through a visual area, but I couldn't quite make it out. Or, I lose a unit and because I'm playing 5 games simultaneously, I can't remember what was just there, especially if air power kills it and I never saw the icon.
2. A log of what just died on his last player turn, or for that matter, when I'm done. Heck, we could shoot the moon and ask for the results of each battle that just took place. And then... and then... how cool would it be to total the points that each player took by category. Not kills. Points lost. Make it columnar and you could sort by unit type, hex row, hex column, all sorts of great ways to recap what just happened. Maybe, have it save each turn, and you could do all sorts of data crunching. Make the turn by turn save a delimited text file and we can bring the data in and see what ever we want to see by importing it into a spreadsheet. Ooooooohhhh.....
I think both these ideas would be code-able and you wouldn't have to play with the engine much. More enhancements to MP than anything.
Let me offer a couple of ideas that I think would be relatively easy to code, and would be nice improvements. I'm speaking for the multi-player realm on this subject.
1. After my opponent's turn, I'd like to be able to replay his moves again. I understand the obvious problems invoked with cheating, but if the replay function were made unusable after I move my first unit, that should answer that problem. There's too many times that I miss a unit buzzing through a visual area, but I couldn't quite make it out. Or, I lose a unit and because I'm playing 5 games simultaneously, I can't remember what was just there, especially if air power kills it and I never saw the icon.
2. A log of what just died on his last player turn, or for that matter, when I'm done. Heck, we could shoot the moon and ask for the results of each battle that just took place. And then... and then... how cool would it be to total the points that each player took by category. Not kills. Points lost. Make it columnar and you could sort by unit type, hex row, hex column, all sorts of great ways to recap what just happened. Maybe, have it save each turn, and you could do all sorts of data crunching. Make the turn by turn save a delimited text file and we can bring the data in and see what ever we want to see by importing it into a spreadsheet. Ooooooohhhh.....

I think both these ideas would be code-able and you wouldn't have to play with the engine much. More enhancements to MP than anything.
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
more enhancements to MP would be great, hopefully sometime before Panzer Corps 2I think both these ideas would be code-able and you wouldn't have to play with the engine much. More enhancements to MP than anything.
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:24 pm
- Location: central Florida
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
How about making Artillery "Queen of the Battlefield" again by giving it the ability to Bombard vice single shot as is presenyed in the game and while I'm on a rant....why on the AI's turn does a defensive unit (a scout car for instance), protected (adjacent to) by 2 tanks gets shot up and the 2 stronger tanks never fire protection, in the real world the tanks would have defended the little guy with return fire, otherwise why bother to place protection ?
-
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
There are many things in PzC that don't happen in the RW and vice versa. Artillery has always been the only thing that gives support fire, except in some later modded variants of PG2 where it could be given to other units. In your example, we have to put the tanks in the way of the enemy to protect the recon - no support fire will be given.chief wrote:How about making Artillery "Queen of the Battlefield" again by giving it the ability to Bombard vice single shot as is presenyed in the game and while I'm on a rant....why on the AI's turn does a defensive unit (a scout car for instance), protected (adjacent to) by 2 tanks gets shot up and the 2 stronger tanks never fire protection, in the real world the tanks would have defended the little guy with return fire, otherwise why bother to place protection ?
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:24 pm
- Location: central Florida
Re: Panzer Corps 2.0 - how it could look...
My question is "why NO support fire", in RW you don't toss cookies at tanks, when you have AT guns and tanks next to you, capable of shooting back. Never mind I don't want to start a flamer. SMILE and Bear it.
'll drop the subject. 


Amphibious Landing Rules
Amphibious Landing Rules:
- A unit landing to a coastal hex should perform an attack on that hex if it is occupied.
- The attack will suffer penalties based on what type of unit is trying to make the landing (maybe some unit types cannot even perform an amphibious attack).
- If the attack fails in either eliminating or 'pushing back' the defending ground unit, then the attacking (sea based) unit surrenders.
- There should be a new unit called 'Marines'.
- Marines don't suffer a penalty (or atleast not as severe) when performing amphibious attacks.
This would improve sea-to-land combat and make it more realistic. As it is now it is impossible to land if there is a unit occupying a coastal hex.
- A unit landing to a coastal hex should perform an attack on that hex if it is occupied.
- The attack will suffer penalties based on what type of unit is trying to make the landing (maybe some unit types cannot even perform an amphibious attack).
- If the attack fails in either eliminating or 'pushing back' the defending ground unit, then the attacking (sea based) unit surrenders.
- There should be a new unit called 'Marines'.
- Marines don't suffer a penalty (or atleast not as severe) when performing amphibious attacks.
This would improve sea-to-land combat and make it more realistic. As it is now it is impossible to land if there is a unit occupying a coastal hex.