OOB: Pacific vs Panzercorp

[simcc]

As I am sure most of us play this 2 games hehehe here is the summary of what this 2 games good point IMO and hope that the future games can incorporate all these elements.

Panzercorp
- my favorite is the content which is so rich it never gets bored to replay again especially GC, managing and taking your core around Europe is fun and personalize. I have build so many different core army in PzC that I lost count actually lol
- SE unit with different skin makes them look and feel like special unit in which in game it have a psychology effect just to make sure they don't die hehehe
- transport movement, this is where OOB is lacking as it provide great tactical challenge and also fund management to equip an army to motorized or mechanize army and it can interprete in game as which army is the one that use main road and off road.
- weather, I do miss that hateful mud and rain which cost me delay as planes can't be use and tanks stuck in mud hahahaha. Most battle are won and lost due to weather IRL so hopefully OOB can adopt this abit. Planes is important in OOB so can't take them of a turn but at least make them less effective in bad weather also a difficult weather test where experience pilot excel and new pilot will not be able to handle well losing some strength in bad weather raid.
- maps, they have some of the best maps ever which is challenging and fun to play

OOB: Pacific
- unit classification of big and small is a great job makes a very tactical challenge to bring which ship which plane and which AA.
- naval battle, really really a awesome job done here. In which PzC lack maybe Europe theater have less naval battle
- supply system, awesome job again over PzC IMO as in OOB encirclement can make an army useless while in PzC no such bonus, my Tiger can still blow of the enemy even when I have been cut off from my army something I don't enjoy in PzC.
- army point, great job as it create a balance on the entire army on how many infantry, planes and ships you take to battle to support each other and again PzC lack here as I remember fielding 50% stukas in GC 39 as they hit armor hard really hard hahaha.
- recon need work honestly compare to PzC as their vision have no advantage hence recon is hard to use in OOB, in PzC my recon is the key to victory those spot 3-4 hex really help but in OOB I don't even bother fielding recon
- special ability with cost is a great job too keeps players balance in thinking spend more for advantage etc
- animation is great even sometimes not realistic lol, cmon you can't see a carrier deck if it's suck in midway that's a deep sea, people still have a hard time locating Kaga up to date.
- map need to improve too compare to PzC eg lack of land base airfield etc
- specialization is an added spice but need some work as some specialization is redundant ie medic truck, Japanese early air tech which no airfield to field them etc.
- taking minor objective no gain which is sad again a letdown compare to PzC, players spend time to study the map to capture those only to find out no advantage is a bummer.

Overall I say both games still have their fun which I do hope OOB can improve as its a later game hence higher expectation as you have those old games as reference.

[Bylandt11]

Some good points. Though I think the maps are more interesting in OOB. The scenario's are much more varied, at least.

OOB has much more potential. I hope it will be realized.

[rezaf]

Yeah, some good points.

transport movement, this is where OOB is lacking

Yeah, I think transports need a bit of a buff in OOB. With normal Inf, more often than not there's hardly a hex to move to which would put the unit into the truck. This even happens frequently with towed stuff like ART or AA. I think roads also don't work properly, as they appear not to negate movement penalties incured by bad terrain.

- weather, I do miss that hateful mud and rain which cost me delay as planes can't be use and tanks stuck in mud hahahaha. Most battle are won and lost due to weather IRL so hopefully OOB can adopt this abit.

I don't miss getting stuck in the mud myself, but I agree it'd be neat if there was weather and if it had an effect. In clear wether, you should be able to spot farther, maybe even have a chance at spotting Infantry in cities or jungles. CAS bombers should have do more damage. With an eye on the previous point, transports should get a movement bonus. Troops could also have a higher probability of falling back.

Planes is important in OOB

This is actually one of my main compaints about the game, air power feels almost useless against ground targets (especially compared to PG/PzC) but is often too lethal in naval combat, considering there's literally nothing you can do to protect your ships.

- maps, they have some of the best maps ever which is challenging and fun to play

There's a bit too much slogging through the jungle, and quite a few maps require too much hindsight to play properly, but other than that, I agree.

- naval battle, really really a awesome job done here.

I'm a bit torn on that. Sometimes it feels great. But if you actually have a decent sized navy, it feels like the 18th century. You make long chains of destroyers to shield your heavier ships from the overpowered torpedoing attacks and move about in lines.

supply system, awesome job

Agreed.

- army point, great job

Also agreed.

- recon need work honestly compare to PzC as their vision have no advantage hence recon is hard to use in OOB, in PzC my recon is the key to victory those spot 3-4 hex really help but in OOB I don't even bother fielding recon

It was the other way around for me - can't forego another actual fighting unit in favor of a recon one in PzC, but in OOB, they remain useful throughout the campaign. Even if it's still the same crappy early war models like for japan. But as I wrote in the weather paragraph, I feel visibility should be better in general.

- taking minor objective no gain which is sad again a letdown compare to PzC, players spend time to study the map to capture those only to find out no advantage is a bummer.

Well, obviously you gotta cut the sole scenario designer some slack, but on the other hand, it was wrong not to put more people on the job. FFS, they have bebro in the company, who has major credits from designing multiple large-scale mods for PzC, but apparently they never even ask him for advice? The mind boggles.
_____
rezaf

[simcc]

Why i think map on OOB need improvement. I will take Guadalcanal scenario (IJ) as example.

First we aint following historical tree anymore as IJ never won that battle right lol.

2 path in that map atm ie north (with roads) and south (some road difficult terrain) to link up those 4 pockets.

- First I would edit the script of reinforcement of US since its important island to have so if there is a wave of marine reinforcing Guadalcanal coming in the middle of the game landing zone around Airfield zone with some Navy support to keep our IJ fleet buzy.
- Second I would make the north approach fast since there is road but heavy resistance with reinforcement. This is to let player think about moving fast but fighting hard on north and also open up a strategy to build bridge to by pass some fortification and flank that beach zone.
- Third I would make south approach with blown bridge(forcing player to use engineer to build bridge) and roads (hopefully new rules for road and transport) so that players can use trucks to move fast there and i would setup those marine raider to ambush those moving trucks. This is to make players think about moving fast and take a risk of ambush. Atm those marine raider is suppose to do an ambush job in the Jungle area but without infantry moving in transport you will bum into them and shot them to pieces hence defeating the marine raider ambush in the first place. I remember playing PzC, choice hmmm infantry mount up and rush and a t34 came out and blast them to pieces for over extending or move slow and safer but time is running out.

The thing about OOB map is some map you can only move so slow that AI have no chance of ambushing you unlike PzC always need to think transport = fast but high risk a tank will appear and kill it and on PzC some map a bridge engineer give you such advantage as you can outflank the entrench enemy with your Panzer but here eg Guadalcanal building any bridge didn't help my south team move any faster which is why i think developer need to look at PzC on transport movement. There are only so few chance that my infantry in OOB is using a truck which i don't even bother to equip them with anymore except that LV for US team. Map should always be design in the way that fast movement = risk, and truck is high risk high return ie getting to a place fast for outflank of cut off supply. In Guadalcanal i can only manage to cut off those middle section US force after a long walk from my marine to second pocket kill that bunker and run up to the beach area and meeting absolutely no resistance except that bunker hence i would add a road that can allow player to mount up move fast but place a few infantry to ambush that road which IMO i think it will be more tactical challenging. If you move a huge force than can overwelm the ambush team over that road then AI ambush team wont engage but cut off your supply than i would say that map is very fun and challenging to play.

Another example is Brisbane map its just a straight forward rush down with infantry and fleet bombardment. No option to cut of the middle section defenders.
These type of games IMO map building is very very important in which why i think PzC is great in this as they give you a puzzle to solve it which i find it lacking here except for some map like Pearl which is really a tactical challenge for both US or IJ to complete the secondary objective.

[bebro]

re rezaf: I can safely say that in general Lukas is very open to input from others, and I did make suggestions about certain things (some of it made it into the game, some not - ces't la vie). Though mainly I was busy with 3d modelling. And I'm certainly not pretending that I'd have done everything better scn wise. Khalkyn Gol...never forget

[simcc]

re bebro, since you are doing 3d modelling is there a way to change the skin of the unit? like maybe i dress 1 of the japanese infantry in blue? Well it was always a dream of mine since PG2 that i wish that if we perform well in the campaign the general will reward my core with different uniform to show the elite status also in MP player mode to show off a bit lol. Keep dreaming as usual hahahaha

[adherbal]

We are thinking about implementing a camouflage/skin feature similar to the one in World of Tanks, where you can apply different patterns to your units. But unlike WoT, we wouldn't charge money for the skins

As for the other points, thanks for the feedback. We are listening and how to improve (at least some of) these points in the near future.

[simcc]

Lol thx for not charging for skins lol. I know many MMO charge for everything lol which is something I hate hahaha. Thx for listening to feedback just wanna share my tots to make a better game so I can enjoy more hahaha since I am a tech dinosaur I will have to rely on you guys the modern wizard to create magic hahaha