Reform units as game feature

[robman]

The game engine doesn't support any sort of realistic supply rules, so I don't think it's important to worry reforming after encirclement and such. Hopefully in a new game some sort of better supply system could be implemented. For an elegant, yet simple system, see Unity of Command.

I haven't played Unity of Command, but I just checked out the website, and yes, it does indeed have an attractive supply management system: http://unityofcommand.net/blog/2011/11/ ... of-supply/. I would love to see something like this implemented in a future version of the PzC line.

[Rudankort]

I haven't played Unity of Command, but I just checked out the website, and yes, it does indeed have an attractive supply management system: http://unityofcommand.net/blog/2011/11/ ... of-supply/. I would love to see something like this implemented in a future version of the PzC line.

There were a lot of discussions about such supply mechanics even back in PG days. However, PG is a much more fluid game, it is not about maintaining the line and capturing the territory, and such a supply network might not work very well here. We need to consider how naval landings will work, air droppings behind the lines, battle groups sent to enemy's flank and rear, bypassing fortified cities with mobile units etc. etc.

[robman]

There were a lot of discussions about such supply mechanics even back in PG days. However, PG is a much more fluid game, it is not about maintaining the line and capturing the territory, and such a supply network might not work very well here. We need to consider how naval landings will work, air droppings behind the lines, battle groups sent to enemy's flank and rear, bypassing fortified cities with mobile units etc. etc.

Right. Unity of Command is a larger-scale game and its mechanics would not apply exactly to PzC. I didn't mean a supply system exactly like that one, but something in the same general spirit, so that units behind enemy lines face diminishing marginal returns when resupplied. I think this is in the spirit of PzC, since so many scenarios involve rescuing and/or joining up with isolated or advance units (even more so than in PG). For example, after "x" turns, a unit disconnected from the supply lines would get perhaps 1 ammo and 1 or 2 fuel when resupplied. The supply lines might be some combination of connectivity to ports, airfields, and friendly city hexes. Food for thought for a fundamental reworking of the game in the future, rather than tweaking it in the near term.

[Chris10]

There were a lot of discussions about such supply mechanics even back in PG days. However, PG is a much more fluid game, it is not about maintaining the line and capturing the territory, and such a supply network might not work very well here. We need to consider how naval landings will work, air droppings behind the lines, battle groups sent to enemy's flank and rear, bypassing fortified cities with mobile units etc. etc.

There was indeed some sort of a rudimentary version of a supply-line system in PG...You could cut off units (interrupting direct line to friendly hex) by directly occupying hexes or exert some sort of interference by using the ZOC of your units...this allowed for 50% supply AFAIR..then when directly having adjacent enemy units and cut off with ZOC supply was impossible...something like that

This covered naval landings too as you had to conquer a city hex in order to be able to resupply (and have a direct line towards it)... otherwise...doomed

I dearly miss this in PzC as it adds to immersion and tactical considerations...
as far as I have seen nothing of this was retained in PzC so that units can resupply under the most unrealistic circumstances (like being cut off from friendly lines/supply hexes or being 20.000 miles behind enemy lines)

Only digging in my memory so Iam not 100% positive about what Iam saying here but... almost

[El_Condoro]

Adjacent enemy units affect supply in PzC - if there are 3, no supply at all. So my guess is each enemy unit reduces the maximum allowed supply (ammo, fuel and reinforcements) by 1/3. There is no simulation of supply lines being cut where the enemy is not directly adjacent or where supply would need to go through an enemy ZOC or where geography and topography would prevent resupply etc.

[soldier]

I've played unity of command and also really like the way supply is handled in that game. I wished Panzer Corps had some sort of enhancement in the supply department over the old PG model. I quite liked the idea of towns having a radius of 3 or 4 hex out where you could still get current supply levels but if you step beyond that some cut might be applied. It wold really add another level of strategy to scenarios like moscow and make smaller towns vital.
but Rudankort has a good point. Some work around would have to be found for paratroops etc but i think its definitely worth considering

[Xitax]

I don't think supply should be a factor in the game any more than it already is. Just shoot me, I guess, but it's pretty good as it is.

[jayman]

I'm a new player to PZC, though I had all the PG games. I've played up to the Low Countries on the vanilla campaign and I voted yes for the reform units thing. Nothing more annoying than building-up a unit only to have it ambushed and destroyed!

[boredatwork]

This ocvered naval landings too as you had to conquer a city hex in order to be able to resupply (and have a direct line towards it)... otherwise...doomed

...

Only digging in my memory so Iam not 100% positive about what Iam saying here but... almost

TBH the only time I remember this in any of the 5 star games was needing to capture an airfield in the Torch scenario in AG because IIRC no carrier was provided. Otherwise as far as I rember it was 50% supply normally (as opposed to 100% in PzC), and no supply within a zone of control (unless you reinforced which gave you free supply).




I'm curious about unity of command now and will have to check it out - however probably the limitation of any complication of the supply system isn't IMO amphibious landings or paradrops - it's the additional level of programming required so that the AI can handle it intelligently and protect it's supply lines to avoid the mechanic being abused by the player. Given the current AI will move 0 ammo units next to the enemy instead of supplying them I think there would be a BIG improvement required. For MP though it might be a nice addition.

[adrianoku]

To remain in topic I'd like the option to reform units, with a limit of reforming units per scenery/campaign, or the possibility to join 2 units which had some
loss.(only at the end on a scenery).
Regarding ideas for a new generation of PzC I would appreciate the possibility to have some gain if attaccking from rear/flank, or introducing some traits which
permits a unit ( I think paratroops) to ignore , at least partially,enemy ZOC ( paratroops would gain some sense in this game...). Regarding supply, I think it's good as it is now, but could be introduced same sort of "depot" hex, I mean a city or a hex where units could gain full ammo/fuel only standing on it. Don't know if these are changings that can be applied to this engine or a to a new one, this is lord'z job...

[Longasc]

For this reason, making it an option, not mandatory, is probably the way to go. Alternatively, such a feature could be part of some difficulty levels (easier ones), with an option to play custom difficulty level, not by modifying data files, but by using game UI.

I like the "reform" feature. It should become an option. I would also like to have the random "seed" for single player games back as an option, but I am afraid I am a minority in this regard.

Great ideas for the future of Panzer Corps. There is indeed a problem with longish campaigns and the way core units, prestige and all that work. There is always the danger that an already overly strong force gets even stronger while a player who is already struggling gets punished and therefore gets even harder challenges in future scenarios.

For the future I could even imagine to eliminate Prestige or change it a lot, to replace it with "reinforcement points" split up in different categories for a scenario only (avoids accumulating prestige or having not enough to make it through a scenario) and wins awarding prestige points for SE units or strategic decisions or something like that. But that would change the game completely, it's an idea for future versions, Panzer Corps 2. Definitely wouldn't work with Panzer Corps as it is, it would be too fundamentally different.

[Longasc]

P.S. please make it so that the units gets entries like

"destroyed in Sealion 42"
and
"reformed in East Coast USA"

or something like that in unit history. That would be pretty rad!

[KeldorKatarn]

True, such history entries would be nice. Especially since that's how you read it in history books about units. "Destroyed at Stalingrad, reformed 5 March 1943

[mass09]

As long as the feature is optional it would be fine. I actually like the feature.

[ckraiderfan1]

I like it It makes the game more realistic

[Delta66]

It makes sense to add cheats that apply to the whole campaign into optional modes rather than cheat code.

I play most of the time in chess mode, and its a pain to type in the code for every scenario. Moreover in non campaign scenarios where the AI opponent play first you cannot type the code before the end of the AI first turn.

Maybe you can add, an "advanced options" tab on the otpions selectors page, if you want to keep thing simple for new users.

[captainjack]

I think Reform Units would be better as a start up option.
However, I would be happy with it as a cheat code, provided there was a way of checking whether it was on or off, as the worst case for me is when I think it's on, but it isn't.

I could see that it might be appropriate to deactivite Reform Units in specific hexes (much as in some hexes resupply is restricted) or possibly even for a whole scenario. This could be appropriate for some breakout type scenarios where if you're too far from home when something bad happens that's it. But that is probably be something for the future and right now an On/Off flag for Refrom Units would be fine by me.

[brdrumz]

When I play the game, if a good CORE unit gets destroyed, I just "pretend" that a few of the guys escaped from that group and I might rename a NEW CORE (the same name or something similar). If I get attached to a core and it gets destroyed, I'm usually bummed about it and regret my moves and thinking. So after hitting myself on the head....I just make another CORE group and try to replace my old one. (Losses of heroes and awards was my own fault.)

I like the reformation option, (as an option).

On the subject of SURRENDERS: How about if a unit surrenders, (not having any friendly units adjacent to them where they could find an escape route) When you defeat a country or scenario within a Campaign, you get the option to reclaim your surrendered unit before advancing to the next mission. This makes it seem as though they were taken as POW's and you have rescued them from the enemy. If you think they are a bunch of "girly men" for giving up in the first place...you don't have to re-claim them. (once again...another option.)

Lastly, after reading messages on this topic, please don't re-invent the game so much in the future that it takes away from the simple, fun, classiness it already has. One thing I like about PzC is that after all the years of PG - I feel familiar with this game and most all of it's controls. (I never liked PG2 as much as original PG.) By the time PG-3D came out, I was totally un-interested in it anymore and only played PG and AG faithfully. Sometimes tweaking something too much, takes away from the original concept. The neat fact you can MOD this game makes it totally replayable for years to come!
Sometimes "less is more." (and with modding, new units and various updates - the game stays new and current.)

[KeldorKatarn]

Any updates on this btw?

[RobertCL]

As long it remains optional like FoW/Supply/Weather, I don't see a problem. So I vote in the first option.
But if the intention is to make it permanent, then I would change my vote to the second option.

+1