Slitherine

Horseman wrote:@Mrfancypants -I'm finding my Cruisers more than adequate giving naval support in the Norway scenario....

As to the Brits being better in the same scenario with shore bombardment because of "lots of Battleships and cruisers?"

So far I've encounterd 1 Brit battleship and 2 heavy cruisers (as well as 1 french light cruiser) and I'll be surprised to find any more considering the satge in the scenario I'm at.

That weighs against 3 German Heavy Cruisers and 2 Light Cruisers......

It seemed like lots of capital ships, maybe because your own forces are distributed all over the place.

I find it surprising though that so many people here consider naval bombardment to be accurate in this game. A battleship with main armament of 8 380mm guns has a soft attack value of 9. A single 280mm railwail gun has a value of 24 and that is ignoring the secondary armament. Maybe it is necessary to have these values to balance the game, but they don't seem plausible to me. Reduce some points for the flat trajectory of naval artillery if you want or to take into account that naval HE ammunition may differ from conventional artillery rounds, but at the very least those ships should completly suppress ground units (with exception of shore defenses).

Capital ships already kill 1to 3 strength points and do long time suppression.

Have you played the game yet?

They are quit capable of reaking havoc on units.

Like my posts in other topics may have suggested, I'm a big fan of PacGen too. It had a more flexible gameplay:
- prestige victory - no need to take all cities, killing most of the enemy army could be done as well
- kill-a-unit get-her-hex push-move even when no movement was left
- realistic carrier-unit
- and all the comfy things we have in PC now, like move now, shoot later

I would favor it over an Allied General remake, but we all know, with Brits and US units existing, this will come first. But thats ok, the Lordz should build up some cash stock from fast releases to be financialy potent to develop even better games in future.

And Fantasy General... Thats very nice too!

doc99 wrote:Re-doing Fanatasy General would open up a whole new market for you and really be a catalysit for growth

Can´t say how great this would be! Played that dawn game dozen times

doc99 wrote:Re-doing Fanatasy General would open up a whole new market for you and really be a catalysit for growth

I loved Fantasy General, and so did my wife, who doesn't play war games. Hmmm. . .

In that case I'd rather prefer a Star General than a Fantasy General.

VPaulus wrote:In that case I'd rather prefer a Star General than a Fantasy General.

Razz1 wrote:Capital ships already kill 1to 3 strength points and do long time suppression.

Have you played the game yet?

They are quit capable of reaking havoc on units.

If you want to disagree then disagree, there is no need to be unfriendly.
If you bother to look at the unit statistics you will see that in most cases naval artillery is very ineffective (compare soft/hard attack of ships to ground defence of the most common ground units, that is infantry and tanks). Shoot entrenched infantry with railway guns and battleships for a while and compare the results. How many attacks does it take before infantry is completly suppressed, how many before it is destroyed?

Naval combat in this game is definitely worse than it was in PacGen and naval bombardment is just one little aspect of that.

Consider one thing:
Look at the pacific theator. Look at the massive bombardment by ALOT of battleships , cruisers as well as overwhelming air bombardment, on islands only a couple of square miles in size. Then look at the cost on American lives trying to take those same Islands.
Clearly the Japanese wernt wiped out to a man from naval gunnery alone.

I think you need to accept that Panzer Korp is a ground pounder game, with naval actions added in as a subsidiary (although important role).

Wait for Pac Korp for more detailed Naval action , likly the "scale" of the game will be smaller (battalians regiments?) to warrent more suppression/damages inflicted.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Consider one thing:
Look at the pacific theator. Look at the massive bombardment by ALOT of battleships , cruisers as well as overwhelming air bombardment, on islands only a couple of square miles in size. Then look at the cost on American lives trying to take those same Islands.
Clearly the Japanese wernt wiped out to a man from naval gunnery alone.

I think you need to accept that Panzer Korp is a ground pounder game, with naval actions added in as a subsidiary (although important role).

Wait for Pac Korp for more detailed Naval action , likly the "scale" of the game will be smaller (battalians regiments?) to warrent more suppression/damages inflicted.

It is true that naval artillery has its limitations (I never claimed otherwise) but in the case of US landings in the Pacific you should consider that infantry wasn't just entrenched (i.e. in positions that took days to dig) but in fortifications that had been prepared over months. In PacGen this is reflected by fortifications along the beaches which you can't easily defeat with naval artillery.
You also have to ask yourself what the casualties would have looked like without any artillery support. Especially in the earlier invasions where Japanese forces were dug in near the beaches.

Plus, there are many accounts of instances where naval artillery did have a significant effect. Read about Salerno, for example. Or look at this linkwhich describes some German impressions under point 30. According to that report a battleship had more firepower than any single unit of artillery usually found on the battlefield.

And ground pounder game or not, if it is depicting naval invasions it wouldn't hurt not to take several steps from PacGen in terms of functionality

I look forward to Panzer Corps doing well. With luck this will give cause for more of the General series.

but Panzer General was considerably more popular (and still is) than Pacific General

Care to prove that ^ SPECULATION that PG was CONSIDERABLY MORE POPULAR? You have the DOCUMENTATION? You have the SALES FIGURES? NO? I DIDN'T THINK SO. Please don't make statements you can't prove or provide documentation for. You have no clue which was more popular and by how much.

MrFancypants wrote:It is true that naval artillery has its limitations (I never claimed otherwise) but in the case of US landings in the Pacific you should consider that infantry wasn't just entrenched (i.e. in positions that took days to dig) but in fortifications that had been prepared over months. In PacGen this is reflected by fortifications along the beaches which you can't easily defeat with naval artillery.
You also have to ask yourself what the casualties would have looked like without any artillery support. Especially in the earlier invasions where Japanese forces were dug in near the beaches.

Plus, there are many accounts of instances where naval artillery did have a significant effect. Read about Salerno, for example. Or look at this linkwhich describes some German impressions under point 30. According to that report a battleship had more firepower than any single unit of artillery usually found on the battlefield.

And ground pounder game or not, if it is depicting naval invasions it wouldn't hurt not to take several steps from PacGen in terms of functionality

True, but remember that in Salerno,

"Naval bombardment was carried out by the following heavy forces: 7 Battle Ships,2 2 Monitors, 23 Cruisers, 2 Gun Boats and 74 Destroyers. In addition, a wide variety of special amphibious fire support craft were provided, to give close support by firing onto the beaches from inshore waters. This force consisted of 25 LCG (L's) 36 LCT (R's), 24 LCS (M's), 29 LCF's, 45 LCA (HR's), 5 LCT (CB's), 48 LCT (A's), and 16 LCT (HE's)."

That's a LOT of firepower. And accuracy would be nowhere near as good as field artillery without spotters, either by air or land.
I remember reading the memoirs of a Swede fighting with the French Foreign Legion in Norway, recounting the battle of Narvik where a British destroyer shot so poorly they thought it had it coming when it was sunk.

Another point to consider is that naval bombardment could last days, sometimes weeks, before the enemy positions were softened up sufficiently for invasion.

Igorputski wrote:

but Panzer General was considerably more popular (and still is) than Pacific General

Care to prove that ^ SPECULATION that PG was CONSIDERABLY MORE POPULAR? You have the DOCUMENTATION? You have the SALES FIGURES? NO? I DIDN'T THINK SO. Please don't make statements you can't prove or provide documentation for. You have no clue which was more popular and by how much.

When you are able to communicate in a civilized manner, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Meanwhile, the figures are available online, both reviews and sales figures. Don't let me stand in the way of your self-education.

[quote]
The Pacific theatre is definitely worthy of a good strategy game, but I don't think we'll be seeing "Pacific Corps" as such, nor do I think there is much demand for it (in preferring Pacific General, you are in a minority I'm afraid). Actually I agree Pacific Corp would be my choice as well. Very popular game regardless of who had majority or minority. [/quote]

I too am another that would greatly like to see a Pacific General remake or reform.

It also looks to me like you are the one being the azz here. You think because Panzer General was more popular no one else's choices matters. Why even point out which was a majority or minority? You came off as it was so unpopular that [quote] I don't think we'll be seeing "Pacific Corps" as such, nor do I think there is much demand for it [/quote]

One of the Devs shot you down and now you can't take it that Pacific General is worthy of a remake or redo. So, in essence "it really doesn't matter what [i][b]you [/b][/i]think" you're just a troll.

Lets keep this civil or we'll lock it up.

The honest truth is we have a short term plan up to Christmas locked down, but beyond that we have not decided anything. We have ideas but nothing set in stone.

We'll be letting you all in on the short term plan in the not too distant future.

My apologies, Iain. But I feel I need to clarify a few things, as there seems to be a misunderstanding.

honestabe wrote:It also looks to me like you are the one being the azz here. You think because Panzer General was more popular no one else's choices matters.

Um, where did I say anything remotely like that? Where did I oppose it at all? In fact, I would welcome such an expansion, or even stand-alone game myself as I, too, am interested in the Pacific theatre.

Why even point out which was a majority or minority? You came off as it was so unpopular that

I don't think we'll be seeing "Pacific Corps" as such, nor do I think there is much demand for it

Because I was making a prediction, not a statement of preference. I similarly predict that I will probably not live to see my 90th birthday, but that does not mean I wouldn't like to.

Kissaki wrote: True, but remember that in Salerno,

"Naval bombardment was carried out by the following heavy forces: 7 Battle Ships,2 2 Monitors, 23 Cruisers, 2 Gun Boats and 74 Destroyers. In addition, a wide variety of special amphibious fire support craft were provided, to give close support by firing onto the beaches from inshore waters. This force consisted of 25 LCG (L's) 36 LCT (R's), 24 LCS (M's), 29 LCF's, 45 LCA (HR's), 5 LCT (CB's), 48 LCT (A's), and 16 LCT (HE's)."

That's a LOT of firepower. And accuracy would be nowhere near as good as field artillery without spotters, either by air or land.
I remember reading the memoirs of a Swede fighting with the French Foreign Legion in Norway, recounting the battle of Narvik where a British destroyer shot so poorly they thought it had it coming when it was sunk.

Another point to consider is that naval bombardment could last days, sometimes weeks, before the enemy positions were softened up sufficiently for invasion.

Sure, there were usually a lot of ships involved in naval bombardments. I guess you could explain that in PC with one ship representing a flotilla or squadron, but in any case, wouldn't more firepower be an argument in favour of increasing effectiveness of naval support in this game?.
I'm not so sure about accuracy, especially in the case of direct fire (which was probably the most lethal type). In the case of naval artillery you had very advanced fire controls (sometimes even with radar rather than optical controls) and often also spotter aircraft. Forward observers were also used. A battleship was able to hit a moving ship-sized target at ranges of over 25000 yards, as you probably know, which is not too bad. But when you have several hundred guns, each with a semi-automated munition delivery system then you don't need to be very accurate anyway.
When you read about Salerno you often find stories of single ships causing significant damage. For example, you can find claims that a single DD destroyed 12 tanks in a single engagement.
Now imagine what a squadron of ships could do over the course of days and you'd see why I don't really understand why causing no damage and no suppression at all with DDs and CLs against most ground units in this game seems a bit off.

As for the fact that naval bombardments often took days or weeks: from what I understand a turn in PC takes at least one day (according to scenario descriptions). So in most naval invasion scenarios (where you often start with your ground units some way from the shore) you bombard for several days (of course this is where the scale of this type of game breaks down again as landing craft don't typically cruise around for several days).

I'm surprised about the British destroyer at Narvik though. Usually direct fire artillery support from a destroyer was the most dangerous type of fire (this supposedly played an important role in the Normandy landings). Maybe the veteran, not being on board of the destroyer and not being subjected to the fire either, wasn't able to accurately assess the damage. Or the destroyers were preoccupied with the threat of German ships and aircraft. For the most part British gunnery seems to have been sufficient as the Germans lost quite a few ships in that battle.