Just an observation

[Nordlingen1634]

Hello everyone.

I would like to mention some things that I think should be added to future game patches. The game seems exceptional to me but I think sometimes it is too focused on a certain scale, which although correct and very well done, should be improved and expanded tactically and logistically.

I mean you should make some changes, small but important I think ..

Range of artillery and defense increase depending on the terrain: the heights are always strategic positions, since ancient times. Any commander when looking at a map the first thing is to locate the highest, then the communication routes, but first the heights. Why?, Everyone you know. The importance of an elevated position on the war is enormous, weapons can cover more ground and shoot at a greater distance. The visibility gives a huge advantage, Where is the enemy, How Much, When?. For all this I think this game should give some kind of importance to this fact. I've thought elongation artillery fire but other ideas are possible. I believe that only movement and entrenchment effects is not enough.

Unsuply efects more severe for isolated units: Add land convoys, air bridges, supply stores, etc ... All sensitive about being attacked and destroyed with consequences for the fighting units.

Capital ships can transport units...


They are just suggestions.

For now I can think of nothing else, if this has already been posted in the forum I apologize, moderators can delete the thread. I will not cry too, I promise.

Thank you all.

[Longasc]

That's an excellent idea Nördlingen!
I think this idea is so simple yet makes so much sense that this thread simply cannot be deleted, if anything it would be merged into an ideas for Panzer Corps II thread.

And that's what I am going for: While it is an excellent idea, I don't see a way to retroactively add this into the existing game without danger of breaking many scenarios.

I am hoping the next patch gets released soon, while PzCorps was always and is now even more so highly polished and bug free, some features of the latest patch don't work with the DLC campaigns which, in my opinion, definitely the best Panzer Corps has to offer.

[Nordlingen1634]

Thanks Longasc, I think this game being a remake of Panzer General can improve a lot. The game Panzer General was a masterpiece of its time and the PC has improved very well but can not stay stagnant and many things can be done better, more realistic, computers of 15 years ago are not like now.

In many game scenarios are designated as main objectives the cities or airfields, only. In reality the military objectives were heights, bridges, roads, ports, railway hubs, but mainly, the most important were the high positions. Positions with visual advantage and fire, observation and direction of the artillery indirect fire or CAS.

Why it was so important that hill on Guadalcanal? .. Bloody Ridge?. How the Marines organized their defense around Henderson Field? .. Occupying the hills south line, the most logical.
Why a bunch of Fallschirmjäger stopped several Allied divisions in Montecassino?.

No need to put more examples, this can not ignore it in this game, I think it should be kept in mind.

[timek28]

DLC West 44 had such feature in Monte Cassino battle. There where some 3-4 nebelwerfer artilleries as a special units (FS support) on mountian that could fire to the range 4-5. Unfortunatelly this was only a scripted event. So it would be nice if that was a regular feature. Of course this would bring tougher battles alltogether as mountains could become bastions.

One more thing that needs to be dealt with IMO is the artillery firing sequence which is all wrong. All the time AI fires first only artilleries in range, then moves tanks forward, then moves artillery and fires moved artillery in the end, This produces meaningless supressions in end of the turn for AI, and artillery is basically idle most of the time. Katyushas are maybe the best examle. They can wreck havoc if fired and than combined with tank attacks. However with this mechanics they are more or less unable to do anything substantial.

This also produces suicide tank attacks against player without real suppresion first. If this was handled properly, there would be much more trouble for players, albait that could be balanced with no need for as many AI units, which AI needs now to be able to carry on these brute force suicidal attacks.

[Kirby]

Hello everyone.

I would like to mention some things that I think should be added to future game patches. The game seems exceptional to me but I think sometimes it is too focused on a certain scale, which although correct and very well done, should be improved and expanded tactically and logistically.

I mean you should make some changes, small but important I think ..

Range of artillery and defense increase depending on the terrain: the heights are always strategic positions, since ancient times. Any commander when looking at a map the first thing is to locate the highest, then the communication routes, but first the heights. Why?, Everyone you know. The importance of an elevated position on the war is enormous, weapons can cover more ground and shoot at a greater distance. The visibility gives a huge advantage, Where is the enemy, How Much, When?. For all this I think this game should give some kind of importance to this fact. I've thought elongation artillery fire but other ideas are possible. I believe that only movement and entrenchment effects is not enough.

Unsuply efects more severe for isolated units: Add land convoys, air bridges, supply stores, etc ... All sensitive about being attacked and destroyed with consequences for the fighting units.

Capital ships can transport units...


They are just suggestions.

For now I can think of nothing else, if this has already been posted in the forum I apologize, moderators can delete the thread. I will not cry too, I promise.

Thank you all.

On a general basis, for all hills and mountains - I disagree. Not all such terrain beneift from good vantage points.
But I agree if some special tiles would exist that would represent such terrain. Say steep cliffs overlooking beacheads etc.
This way it would be rare enough for the AI to understand its significance and it would lead to less "abuse" from players.

[Nordlingen1634]

On a general basis, for all hills and mountains - I disagree. Not all such terrain beneift from good vantage points.
But I agree if some special tiles would exist that would represent such terrain. Say steep cliffs overlooking beacheads etc.
This way it would be rare enough for the AI to understand its significance and it would lead to less "abuse" from players.

I agree with everything you say Kirby. Should be some new type of tile, or special hexagon or some other modification. Or maybe a new trigger which automatically gives this advantages by terrain to the units who enter on it.

[Nordlingen1634]

DLC West 44 had such feature in Monte Cassino battle. There where some 3-4 nebelwerfer artilleries as a special units (FS support) on mountian that could fire to the range 4-5. Unfortunatelly this was only a scripted event. So it would be nice if that was a regular feature. Of course this would bring tougher battles alltogether as mountains could become bastions.

One more thing that needs to be dealt with IMO is the artillery firing sequence which is all wrong. All the time AI fires first only artilleries in range, then moves tanks forward, then moves artillery and fires moved artillery in the end, This produces meaningless supressions in end of the turn for AI, and artillery is basically idle most of the time. Katyushas are maybe the best examle. They can wreck havoc if fired and than combined with tank attacks. However with this mechanics they are more or less unable to do anything substantial.

This also produces suicide tank attacks against player without real suppresion first. If this was handled properly, there would be much more trouble for players, albait that could be balanced with no need for as many AI units, which AI needs now to be able to carry on these brute force suicidal attacks.

Certainly this is another bug that should be solved, but it is something I think more complicated. You're absolutely right timek28, kamikaze attitude and absolute IA incoordination of both artillery and aerial attacks with te land units, does not do justice to this great game, expect some developer read this thread and get to work ...

Another issue that I would like to see an improvement is the ability to create waypoints for units in the editor, it would be helpful for the simulation of complex maneuvers with AI controlled units.

[Horst]

From my own observations, the AI only sometimes fires first with artillery before anything else. No clue why it tends to forget this proper order.

Giving terrain height a range advantage, let’s say always +1, is a good idea.
In my game, I’ve set the initiative cap of hills and (high) mountains to 100, so units can still take advantage of their far firing weapons, including at-guns and tanks. Hilly and mountainous terrain still counts as close terrain if infantry attacks, so infantry still has some advantage if it can overcome the higher initiative of any kind of guns.

I gave carriers and capital ships the trait to capture port cities to simulate the ability to transport troops like it was done with the unsuccessful action of the German cruiser Blücher during the operation Weserübung. I think this capture feature alone is fine enough.

It’s possible to give more terrain types a supply penalty, like it is done on desert terrain tiles. I also gave this penalty to swamp and high mountains.
Combined with the weather effects, the supply system is already okay in my opinion.
I’d rather like see more consisting weather conditions, in particular with the default random weather settings. The transition from dry to mud or snow and back seems buggy. Often, the mud condition is simply skipped making snowy terrain change instantly to dry in one turn. Not sure, but I think it has something to do with the moisture setting in scenarios.

[soldier]

Being above your opponent certainly offers plenty of advantages but as previously mentioned it has its difficulties too and only certain terrain helps in certain situations. I'd avoid giving blanket advantage to range. A gun on a high peak might fire 5 hexes for sure but can you position your batallion in strength. Getting up there is also tricky, the horses might manage a few 75 mm's but you can forget about hauling big bertha up a mountain and you would probably cause a catastrophe if you did.

It’s possible to give more terrain types a supply penalty, like it is done on desert terrain tiles. I also gave this penalty to swamp and high mountains.

I like this idea

[Nordlingen1634]

Well, I see that my "observations" were not as crazy by the number of replys.

I still think that any change in this point would give a lot more realism to the game. I think it would not be difficult to make this change, one way or another.

The hills surrounded by plains, crossed by roads or paths where can move heavy vehicles towing heavy weapons and ammunition were used in the war. Take the example of Bertha is committing a fallacy, cannons "Long Tom" and other heavy pieces were emplaced and used in the hard italian ground, as well other heavy artillery guns like in Greece, Cyrenaica, the Caucasus, in the Ardennes, Burma and other places. No one is talking about Verdun, Paschendaele or the Somme, we are talking about the WWII ...

I repeat, high positions in the war are ESSENTIAL . Now think you if the game respects this basic precept or not. Greetings.


Edit: Has anyone heard about Mount Suribachi? ... Many American US Marines of course ... and many of them is the last thing they saw.

[Razz1]

You could make hills and mountain tiles take one more action point to enter and then give low mountains a +1 initiative or attack.

[robman]

Well, I see that my "observations" were not as crazy by the number of replys.

Indeed not: The irrelevance of high ground and the terrain-insensitivity of spotting and resupply have been at the top of my list of "things to change" since my Panzer General days, and I say that as a tremendous fan of the Panzer Corps series. And I agree that these could be modeled fairly simply.

The "Churchill" thread brought up another item on my list: the under-representation of the problems that accompanied the use of heavy tanks during this period. They were more than just slower; they were also often less reliable; they were less able to cross muddy or swampy terrain or frozen rivers; and their units often consisted of fewer vehicles, making the loss of a single vehicle relatively more injurious to unit performance.

One simple way to reintroduce these issues would be to make particularly "heavy" units reinforceable only by increments, just like ships. The "increment" need not be "one"; the number could vary. Or it could be a percentage, like rate of fire. Either way, the precedent already exists within the PzC rule set.

[captainjack]

Ideally you'd have an order of precedence for different heights - eg High mountains overlook mountains which overlook hills which overlook all other terrain - so you don't get an advantage from terrain at the same level. One way to deal with high ground might be to add 1 initiative and 1 spotting to higher hexes, and possibly add an extra point or two defence or entrenchment. Perhaps rather than extra range, maybe a +1 or +2 attack would be better for artillery to reflect the better sight lines and improved aiming. I can see a case for AA having attack bonuses as well, as all the surviving 1940s AA battery sites around where I live were built on high ground overlooking the city and harbour.

The one caution would be that 1.20 already provides large (possibly too large) benefits to established defensive positions and to AA units already, and this could be just too much to deal with.

As for Churchills, they probably should have move 3, as this is infantry speed and they were intended to provide close infantry support.

Incidentally, why do the Stuart style Light tanks in West 42/43 have Close Defence 5? This seems very high for a light tank, and is higher than the Mark 1 cruiser with its twin MG turrets, and some of the soviet tanks that had machine guns pointing everywhere and the Panzer 3N close support tanks. I'd be interested to know if they did have some special defences.