Suggestions, wishlist and ideas for Panzer Corps 2 gameplay

[rubyjuno]

In wet weather, after a particularly successful artillery barrage, when in the fully zoomed-in view, get some water and mud splash on the 'camera'.

Remember the praise that 'Saving Private Ryan' got for it's camera work?
Use those same techniques.
De-saturate, subtle shaky camera at moments, and splice out a frame from time to time.

Not sure if you are being serious or if this is meant as a joke? Whichever it is, I'd like to make a plea to developers not to add silly gimmicks like this to a turn-based strategy game. No offence jman0war, but Panzer Corps doesn't need a Hollywood makeover

[jman0war]

A joke? Nope.
It's about the immersion of the player experience.
When zoomed-in, the player should feel the thunder.

Each generation of games progresses by employing 'gimicks'.
If the developers want to go big and expand their market, they should consider what younger gamers expect.
If the developers want to stay a niche market of ageing gamers, well then just do what they've always done.

[rubyjuno]

I guess at 53 years old I'm part of that niche market of ageing gamers so I appreciate your point about attracting younger players. It will be difficult to please everyone, of course. i guess I'm not 100% against gimmicks if they open up new markets for Slitherine, providing that they can be switched off by old fogeys like me who just want to play the game.

Have you tried Call of Duty or Medal of Honor? Some of the older versions are okay and more in the Saving Private Ryan mould

[j4ni]

A joke? Nope.
It's about the immersion of the player experience.
When zoomed-in, the player should feel the thunder.

Each generation of games progresses by employing 'gimicks'.
If the developers want to go big and expand their market, they should consider what younger gamers expect.
If the developers want to stay a niche market of ageing gamers, well then just do what they've always done.

You are absolutely right sir! If we look at the things that make today's games and Hollywood movies successful we more often than not see at least one of two defining features in common, these are:
-(1) Nazis and
-(2) Zombies

Many successful developers use both items at the same time and build a game around it. Other developers sell a "nazi zombie" DLC which is for most youngster players a must buy. Here is an example:
https://youtu.be/mXFlMNeiHC4?t=14m11s
That was just one, but the examples are countless.

As a side note I would like to ad, that also steampunk is on the rise:
https://youtu.be/3Gv6Y4IfslY?t=40s

So I really wouldnt discount the selling power of a steampunk flavor..

I think it would be an instant success if PzC2 came with with a beautifully rendered 3D nazi zombie army campaign with nazi zombie units emerging from swamps in hordes (GC45 east-like). And the target audience needed to
shoot those zombie Tiger I/II/Maus units with his Sherman hero-tank by the dozens. The sherman would need a little bit of affirmative action though...


_____________________________________

On a serious note:

-Make the game 3D only if it can be done in a way that it looks beautiful even on low end machines (I have a powerful PC)
-The visuals should be semi-realistic, capturing a piece of history and not some overly artistic, simplified or childish design.
-The Interface should be nice and simple, supporting fast action gameplay without may animations and menus.
-Ww2 is a serious business, all game elements including interface should be serious with a hint of the mind 20th century flavor (briefing documents, stat pages etc)
I dont want to be distracted with stupid modern looking interfaces (the handling should be convinient, but the looks should be 1940s) and fisher price toy tanks.
-No stupid, distracting animations. In a batlle with a core force of 30 units and 20 turns, there will be hundreds of attacks, watching 1-2 seconds of animation might be ok (like with PzC1) but watching
a long anim. would be a chore (would disable it)

[mbpopolano24]

Make it fun... But I love cinematics... explosions and such...

[ruskicanuk]

Multiplayer campaigns is a tricky one. These type of games assume victory to proceed so how do you imagine it working? What happens to the losing side? How does the campaign deal with core forces as each battle one player loses it all. I don't see how you capture the essence of the game if the player has to lose their core not to mention the snowball balancing issues of the winning player having an upgraded core and the loser starting from scratch.

I'd steer away from multiplayer campaigns instead focusing energy on an improved multiplayer ladder / tournaments / experience.

[Fast00000000000]

This is just an idea but how about a limited number of a specific unit so that you cannot always have the best units in the game as long as you have a lot of prestige.

[Rifraff]

In multiplayer games limit the number of air-sea or land transports.

Not one or two per turn, but down to one or two per scenario....

[goose_2]

In multiplayer games limit the number of air-sea or land transports.

Not one or two per turn, but down to one or two per scenario....

No, I do not agree with this

[JaM2013]

What about using prestige also for purchasing Core Slots and not just units?

[Retributarr]

What about using prestige also for purchasing Core Slots and not just units?

Personally I have no issue with this petition...one should be able to exercise this option & give it a try, except that if one is seeking to keep the Game as Historically Correct as is possible while doing so under the present Game-Condition-SetUp, implementation of this action could seriously unbalance the game!.

[demyansk]

Easy method to incorporate user made campaigns. I still play Panzer Corps each day and I really love this game. I really like the attachment to units. The only thing that would make things easy for me is also e a system identification of special attributes.

Whatever you come up with is great by me. I love all Panzer Corps versions.

[ptje63]

As for the 3D feeling: I would not want the 3D effects or thrill, but I would very much a better perception of what Im up against as far as change of environment: rivers, plains, cities etc, as far as changes into challenges.

[AfrikaKorpsSoldat]

Ok here are my ideas:

1. Very extremely important for AARs:

Real replay options. Set fog of war to whatever side you want or no fog at all(instead of having the game somehow choose which side has the fow in the replay), and choose which turn you want to go to right away.

Also having the replays go smoothly instead of running in the background while you are expected to click the new turn screen after every turn.

2. Multiplayer campaigns:

The solutions to the problems laid out by IainMcneil are as follows:

Defender has the chance to purchase new core units after a loss. If Defending forces are below a certain threshold of experience and the attacking forces above then non core forces should receive an experience boost/more non core forces starting on the field, and have a chance to join the player's core force if he successfully defends and is below the threshold.

3.Having more than one Order of Battle per map.

Instead of having the exact same units starting in the exact same place every scenario in multiplayer I recommend to have several different set ups per side in every map, and having the choice of which of the OOBs each side will use independantly randomized. This should keep MP games fresh, as of course regular non campaign games have no core forces.

Also An option to choose how to set up your own forces in a multiplayer scenario. Give the player The units just like a core force on both sides and let them place them how they would like. There could be restrictions for certain areas to deploy at the start for balance in some scenarios I guess but that could be easily implemented.

[JaM2013]

What about using prestige also for purchasing Core Slots and not just units?

Personally I have no issue with this petition...one should be able to exercise this option & give it a try, except that if one is seeking to keep the Game as Historically Correct as is possible while doing so under the present Game-Condition-SetUp, implementation of this action could seriously unbalance the game!.

i think it would depend on actual gameplay balance.. and on the speed of gaining experience.. you can have larger force this way, but overall experience will be smaller, than if you used smaller core force who would see more fighting..

also i think it would be a good idea to completely remove elite replacements, and instead allow player to combine (Restructure) units into full strength (for example two tank units with depleted strength into single full strength - in case equipment is different, extra cost would be payed for extra vehicles..) This way, keeping the units highly experienced would be a lot more complicated, and player would be forced to get new units and train them up a bit to replenish his elites.. You could even make it so player could combine multiple depleted units into single overstrenght unit.. this was actually common practice to combine depleted units and forming new ones..

[RandomAttack]

also i think it would be a good idea to completely remove elite replacements, and instead allow player to combine...

I love this idea!

[PanzerCro]

When we will see some screenshots or gameplay video from Panzer Corps 2 ?

[Egge]

As much as I like PC, there are a few issues (although I don’t have a solution for all of them).

1. One stat to rule them all. Defense is paramount as you have to minimize losses. As a consequence, IS-2s are vastly superior to T-34s which in turn leads to very unrealistic force compositions. If I lack prestige, I’d rather buy one IS-2 rather than two T-34s. This is not true when playing a single scenario, but in campaign mode you must preserve your forces. Panzer General: Scorched Earth where you were allotted units certainly had problems, but at least it meant that there was some variation in your forces (not that I necessarily suggest this).

2. AT-Guns or Tank destroyers are too weak and pretty useless. In open terrain they are far weaker than tanks and in close terrain they are far weaker than infantry. Maybe add a fire support mode similar to artillery to make them more useful.

3. Recon units are too weak. If put in the frontline, they will always be attacked and destroyed by the enemy. If put behind your tanks to protect them, they can see no farther than the tanks in front of them.

4. Losing on single battle will ruin the whole campaign as you usually have your core force destroyed as well. This means that subsequent battles will be unwinnable as scenarios are designed to be challenging with an intact core force. It could probably be addressed if you issued more auxiliary units to scenarios and not relied on the core force of the player so much. This would also solve the very unrealistic force composition that is the result of issue one.

5. Maybe AA Guns should only be able to fire at certain aircraft. Small caliber guns should not be able to fire at planes flying at higher altitudes, whereas large-caliber guns should only be able to fire at heavy bombers.

6. Make unit-type specific leaders like they existed in Scorched Earth for example. Having a spotting leader on an artillery unit is utterly useless.

7. I’m not entirely happy with the initiative system (although I’m not entirely sure whether changing it will improve the situation). German tanks had better guns and sights and therefore higher initiative in-game. As a consequence, German tanks will usually fire first against Soviets tanks and inflict damage before the Soviets can shoot back. This wasn’t that big a deal in reality however. Sure, Germans did have better guns, but Soviet tanks were better armored which meant that they could kill each other at comparable distances.

8. Generally, I think combat is resolved too fast. You can easily destroy whole units in a single turn.

9. Terrain affecting spotting ranges would be nice. You could also make certain units more difficult to spot.

10. Artillery is too strong right as it is. It should not be possible to destroy units by artillery fire alone. Historically, although it was certainly deadly, only the first few rounds would inflict losses before the enemy could take cover. Maybe you could add some diminishing effect when a unit is hit by multiple artillery attacks in the same round.

11. Tanks are too strong. They should not do much damage when fighting in close terrain where there’s plenty of cover for enemy infantry. In Panzer Corps you just need to hit them once or twice with artillery and move in your tanks to overcome the defending infantry.

[Tagaziel]

I might be one of five people who played Pacific General and loved it (there's something fascinating about the Japanese Empire and the hostile environs where you fight), but I'd love for PC2 to include a number of gameplay features introduced in it, like the revamped naval gameplay (playing through PC after the naval battles in PacGen was a bit of a disappointment).

More importantly, having a lot more unit traits in play would go a long way towards differentiating them and giving each a more unique role. This is already accomplished to a degree with traits like Fortkiller, Minesweeper, Military Engineer etc., but the additions in PacGen, like Fearless (never retreats or surrenders IIRC), Banzai (attacking and destroying is always a choice when you can suffer casualties), and my favorite, Guide (reduces terrain penalties for non-infantry units). More traits would also lead to more interesting approaches to strategy and tactics, for example, Guide units would allow you to pull Fall Gelb out in densely forested or nominally unpassable areas... But put you at risk of getting bogged down should the enemy wipe them out.

Beyond that, a strategic overview screen between missions, allowing for fine-tuning your units, and showing the strategic situations on the fronts of the war. Perhaps get the ability to detach units to have them gain Prestige and Experience if you are facing a mission with a smaller possible core deployment, but running the risk of losing them.

And said strategic overview could allow for using your prestige to nudge the campaign in different directions. If you're the commander who conquers Poland, Norway, and France, surely your voice will be heard and your feedback valued, rather than being treated as a laborer merely following the commands of your betters?

(also, I'm a sucker for ahistorical scenarios, so that would allow for a greater degree of branching and pulling off the impossible... sometimes)

[Pill]

Hi, one feature I would very much like to see is hero bonus and experience points accounted for in unit stats. Opening core GUI window and doing the maths becomes tedious and detracts from gameplay.



Fwiw regarding the engine possibly wishful thinking but it would be great if tactical operations influenced the outcome of battle.
There are occasions where I've meticulously planned my unit deployment for what becomes a slug fest.

I'm referring mainly to the encirclement and envelopment methods used by the Germans during Barbarossa. But Ardennes could be another example, i.e trying to split the allied armies in two...

Surrounding enemy unit cuts off resupply already I know, but I'm thinking of a much larger scale.

Thanks.

PS... also reduced fog of war before deployment,- it's more realistic imo.