You know what's odd is you can't do that incremental move/undo move scouting with aircraft. Ground units can gradually move up till they encounter an enemy ground unit; they then stop and reveal the unit. An air unit needs to be deselected in order for them to reveal an adjacent enemy aircraft making it much easier to have "unexpected encounters". Maybe, the same rules that apply to air units should also apply to ground units which would make "ambushes" more likely (they would have to be deselected after moving in order to spot enemy units, even if they are right next to one).El_Condoro wrote:^ risky because if an unseen enemy suddenly comes into view the spotting unit can't undo and is stuck. But I gree that using undo to scout is a kind of cheat IMO.
What a patch should include.
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Panzer Corps Beta Tester
A more detailed casualty list.
Take in count not only the units totally destroyed but also the strengh points lost.
This could be translated into "real" numbers so 1 inf strengh point = 100 or 1000 soldiers (for example). Put this in a Casualties screen so, in the end of a scenario/campaign you could get a better idea of how many soldiers perished in battle.
Is more inmersive knowing that you lost 75.000 men in Kursk that "4th inf wermach unit was destroyed".
Take in count not only the units totally destroyed but also the strengh points lost.
This could be translated into "real" numbers so 1 inf strengh point = 100 or 1000 soldiers (for example). Put this in a Casualties screen so, in the end of a scenario/campaign you could get a better idea of how many soldiers perished in battle.
Is more inmersive knowing that you lost 75.000 men in Kursk that "4th inf wermach unit was destroyed".
-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
I think this is likly a compromise to save players from carpal tunnel. If yu had to unselect a unit after moving to "finalize the move" and thus reveal unspotted units, say that are now adjacent to you, you would then need to reselect to fire. Could be quite tedious. The simple soultion is dont recon by testing for voids. I cant imagine playing that way, moving one hex at a time, and undo, another hex undue.. yuck, just play w FOW off then. Another solution is to not allow undoes at all when FOW is on, howver a signifcant amount of gamers hate that, not because they want to cheat the system but due to simple booboos, twitchy fingers, drunk playing or just old ageAgentX wrote:You know what's odd is you can't do that incremental move/undo move scouting with aircraft. Ground units can gradually move up till they encounter an enemy ground unit; they then stop and reveal the unit. An air unit needs to be deselected in order for them to reveal an adjacent enemy aircraft making it much easier to have "unexpected encounters". Maybe, the same rules that apply to air units should also apply to ground units which would make "ambushes" more likely (they would have to be deselected after moving in order to spot enemy units, even if they are right next to one).El_Condoro wrote:^ risky because if an unseen enemy suddenly comes into view the spotting unit can't undo and is stuck. But I gree that using undo to scout is a kind of cheat IMO.

-
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
I've suggested that undo be disabled in MP games but didn't get a warm reception. I'm used to not being allowed to use it in PBEM PG2 and think it makes for a good discriminator between good and great players who have enough experience to know if they attack with this, like that, I will likely get that result. No undo for checking stats etc. and definitely not for scouting.
If carpal tunnel is an issue then recons should perhaps go back to the PG way of taking a flag - enter it and it changes to owned. In PzC you have to enter the flag, click it to make it change and then move on. Actually, I think that's related to the spotting idea: units should not spot anything (new), even if adjacent, until their move is finished.
If carpal tunnel is an issue then recons should perhaps go back to the PG way of taking a flag - enter it and it changes to owned. In PzC you have to enter the flag, click it to make it change and then move on. Actually, I think that's related to the spotting idea: units should not spot anything (new), even if adjacent, until their move is finished.
-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Ja, and when I play you in MP I have to sit and watch you move and undo every unit for 5 minutes.El_Condoro wrote: Really? I assumed undue wouldnt work in MP at all. I guess people get competetive enough that they dont want to lose because of a mistake by way of clicking here vs there.... Of course then you need the trust factor. regardless, I wouldnt have an issue if undo was "verboten" in SP and MP![]()
Ambush doesn't exist when you do that.
Wait unitl you play a winter and or mud map. You will see how undo is a cheat.
Correct, if you edit a unit with a transport you need to re-assign it.rezaf wrote:As I think I read somewhere the patch is already in QA, it's probably too late for wishes anyway.
Disregarding that, when creating all the scenarios for my mod, I came across a very annoying bug in the scenarios designer: the transport assignment is very wacky.
Some nations' standard transport does not work properly, so everytime you edit one of their units with a transport assigned, the editor will just drop it.
Some transports fail to show up in the lists, so editing units with these transports assigned will, once again, wipe the transport. A good example is the better german transport.
_____
rezaf
Don't use the shift key when assigning transports.
Units types are based upon date and selection criteria in parameters. That is why some units are missing. Choose the right options and you can select them all.
This is a real cheater in my opinion.McRoos wrote:What a patch should include !
The possibility to select or deselect the UNDO option.
A recon unit is useless, as I can spot terrain with my tank or infantry by selecting a hex, find a out there is no enemy around, undo my turn and select the next hex.
This is a real cheater in my opinion.
Having written this, I don't actually know whether the option is already available !!
Then don't do it.
Undo needs to be enhanced as every player uses it in MP. It destroys the game. Can never set up an ambush.
A compromise is to allow only one undo for every land unit. That will help some.
Otherwise eliminate it, except for recon. Only negative is that a player can get an estimate for mass attacks. That's why the compromise works well.
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2312
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:56 pm
- Location: Northeast, USA
Wow, I just would never think to use the undo in such a way. Yeah – that is cheating.Razz1 wrote:This is a real cheater in my opinion.McRoos wrote:What a patch should include !
The possibility to select or deselect the UNDO option.
A recon unit is useless, as I can spot terrain with my tank or infantry by selecting a hex, find a out there is no enemy around, undo my turn and select the next hex.
This is a real cheater in my opinion.
Having written this, I don't actually know whether the option is already available !!
Then don't do it.
Undo needs to be enhanced as every player uses it in MP. It destroys the game. Can never set up an ambush.
A compromise is to allow only one undo for every land unit. That will help some.
Otherwise eliminate it, except for recon. Only negative is that a player can get an estimate for mass attacks. That's why the compromise works well.
But I have used the undo to see what my attack odds will be between mine and two enemy units (that I can already see though) I do this just to see which one I want to attack. But 99 times out of 100, I have already determined ahead of time that I will attack one of the two.
Wondering if you would think that was cheating too? Or is it what it really is for me – being too lazy to figure out the odds on a fight before committing to it? As the saying goes, all is fair in love and war – but I still try to be more honorable than that.
Like you comprise idea though – assuming this is as big of an issue as it is sounding to be.
-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Holy cow , speaking of bugs , look at the forum posting bug/snafu between me and El Condoro !
I made a reply to him , my actual real post started with "really?" he must have replied in a post starting with "ja", however it gives the appearance that I am quoting him with my own post that never posted in isolation but writing his reponse to mine.... oye, bizzare , disturbing and i feel that Ive been dopplegangered.
Technologically, how is that even possible??
I made a reply to him , my actual real post started with "really?" he must have replied in a post starting with "ja", however it gives the appearance that I am quoting him with my own post that never posted in isolation but writing his reponse to mine.... oye, bizzare , disturbing and i feel that Ive been dopplegangered.

Technologically, how is that even possible??
It's not. I've played plenty of opponents who somehow magically never run into ambushes, but I don't have a problem winning.Xerkis wrote:assuming this is as big of an issue as it is sounding to be.
If any when PzC gets more competitive, as in online ranking, stat tracking, tournaments, and things of that sort, this might be looked at though.
-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Could the multiplayer server track "undoes" ? If so, perhaps a warning could be issued once a certain "tolerance" has been reached. Or perhaps on your turn simply the game displays how many undues he/she did on their prior? That way you could at least have some dialogue with your opponent about whats going on on their end...Kerensky wrote:It's not. I've played plenty of opponents who somehow magically never run into ambushes, but I don't have a problem winning.Xerkis wrote:assuming this is as big of an issue as it is sounding to be.
If any when PzC gets more competitive, as in online ranking, stat tracking, tournaments, and things of that sort, this might be looked at though.
Well, sorry, but it's a bug, not some sort of user error.Razz1 wrote:Correct, if you edit a unit with a transport you need to re-assign it.
Don't use the shift key when assigning transports.
Units types are based upon date and selection criteria in parameters. That is why some units are missing. Choose the right options and you can select them all.
You can assign a Opel Blitz to any unit and then edit it with Shift-Click without any problems.
The same is true for the first of the halftrack-SdKfz's, or for the Lorry and the Bren from the Brits.
But the second of the German SdKfz's will always be erased, no matter the scenario date.
With some nations, not even their native transports are correctly recognized, so that shift-clicking will ALWAYS erase their means of transportation.
I think the US halftrack never correctly appears in the list, so that you always have to re-assign it when you want to edit a unit.
Worse, even if you technically only wanted to check something, as soon as you even ENTER the shift-click screen, the transport is erased.
Either the lists need to be correctly populated with all transports for that nation (and I actually think this is another bug and the editor just assigns transports for the first nation of said side to this list), or there should be an additional button that "applies" a change to means of transportations, so that you can at least check a unit in detail and/or tweak some other stat without accidentally wiping it's transport.
And while we're at it, the validation function should throw warnings when there are no deployment hexes or victory hexes without a flag.
_____
rezaf
This is somewhat fixed in the upcoming patch. Units that are assigned an Opel Blitz will not lose their Opel Blitz when you open the shift click interface, but this is only because the Opel Blitz is listed in the 'organic transport' tab. Units that are not represented there, such as the SE transports, are deleted upon completion of shift click interface usage.rezaf wrote:Well, sorry, but it's a bug, not some sort of user error.
You can assign a Opel Blitz to any unit and then edit it with Shift-Click without any problems.
The same is true for the first of the halftrack-SdKfz's, or for the Lorry and the Bren from the Brits.
But the second of the German SdKfz's will always be erased, no matter the scenario date.
It's somewhat irritating, but not completely editor breaking. There should be a solution for this eventually, although personally I look forward to additions to the editor (such as ability to manually place and edit heroes) over fixes that already have solutions, awkward though they may be.

Well, what you describe doesn't need fixing as it already works that way right now, units won't lose their Opel Blitz, for exactly the reason you mentioned, it is listed in the organic transports list.
That's the beef of the bug, this dropdown isn't being populated correctly.
Why isn't it simply populated with ALL available transport units a user COULD assign to this unit? Or, at least all for his side, I haven't tried assigning an axis transport to an allied unit?
Alternatively, just populating all transports bearing the same Flag designation as the selected unit would be reasonable.
When you create a multinational scenario with say Germany and Romania for the axis, I THINK it STILL only fills the dropdown with the GERMAN Opel Blitz and SdKfz, and it'll happily let you assign those german transports to romanian units (rather than assigning the romanian Opel Blitz), but if you assigned the correct transport to the unit and realize you forgot to adjust it's XP, you shift-click it and, BAM, transport gone.
It might not seem to be much of an issue at a glance, but having just created 38 scenarios for my Panzer General mod, I can assure you, it gets extremely annoying.
Plus, it should be VERY EASY to fix, so why not do so?
_____
rezaf
That's the beef of the bug, this dropdown isn't being populated correctly.
Why isn't it simply populated with ALL available transport units a user COULD assign to this unit? Or, at least all for his side, I haven't tried assigning an axis transport to an allied unit?
Alternatively, just populating all transports bearing the same Flag designation as the selected unit would be reasonable.
When you create a multinational scenario with say Germany and Romania for the axis, I THINK it STILL only fills the dropdown with the GERMAN Opel Blitz and SdKfz, and it'll happily let you assign those german transports to romanian units (rather than assigning the romanian Opel Blitz), but if you assigned the correct transport to the unit and realize you forgot to adjust it's XP, you shift-click it and, BAM, transport gone.
It might not seem to be much of an issue at a glance, but having just created 38 scenarios for my Panzer General mod, I can assure you, it gets extremely annoying.
Plus, it should be VERY EASY to fix, so why not do so?
_____
rezaf
-
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
Extremely easy to fix.
If you edit \Panzer Corps\UI\editor_unitparams.htm with something like Notepad++ you will see this section:
<td><select id="OrganicTransport">
<option value="-1">None</option>
<option value="115">Opel Blitz</option>
<option value="116">SdKfz 251/1</option>
<option value="597">Bren Carrier</option>
<option value="596">Truck</option>
<option value="1071">M3 halftrack</option>
You can see I have added the M3. Just find its equipment number from Data\equipment.pzeqp (1071) and use the format given. Initial testing seems to have it function properly.
If you edit \Panzer Corps\UI\editor_unitparams.htm with something like Notepad++ you will see this section:
<td><select id="OrganicTransport">
<option value="-1">None</option>
<option value="115">Opel Blitz</option>
<option value="116">SdKfz 251/1</option>
<option value="597">Bren Carrier</option>
<option value="596">Truck</option>
<option value="1071">M3 halftrack</option>
You can see I have added the M3. Just find its equipment number from Data\equipment.pzeqp (1071) and use the format given. Initial testing seems to have it function properly.
The list is hardcoded?El_Condoro wrote:Extremely easy to fix.
If you edit \Panzer Corps\UI\editor_unitparams.htm with something like Notepad++ you will see this section:
<td><select>
<option>None</option>
<option>Opel Blitz</option>
<option>SdKfz 251/1</option>
<option>Bren Carrier</option>
<option>Truck</option>
<option>M3 halftrack</option>
You can see I have added the M3. Just find its equipment number from Data\equipment.pzeqp (1071) and use the format given. Initial testing seems to have it function properly.

That said, manually expanding the list might still cause ... probems. Numerous nations use transports that are merely named "Truck", for example...
_____
rezaf
-
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
[quote="TheGrayMouser"]Holy cow , speaking of bugs , look at the forum posting bug/snafu between me and El Condoro !
I made a reply to him , my actual real post started with "really?" he must have replied in a post starting with "ja", however it gives the appearance that I am quoting him with my own post that never posted in isolation but writing his reponse to mine.... oye, bizzare , disturbing and i feel that Ive been dopplegangered.
Technologically, how is that even possible??[/quote]
If the quote is added manually. If I typed,
[quote="Kerensky"]I think Panzer Corps is awesome![/quote]
you'd see a quote that never occurred. I have disabled BBCode in this post so that the code I typed shows instead of the resulting quote box.
Otherwise, it is just that the quote code has been slected and deleted to leave only parts of the original quote. I have no answers beyond these except forum gremlin activity.
I made a reply to him , my actual real post started with "really?" he must have replied in a post starting with "ja", however it gives the appearance that I am quoting him with my own post that never posted in isolation but writing his reponse to mine.... oye, bizzare , disturbing and i feel that Ive been dopplegangered.

Technologically, how is that even possible??[/quote]
If the quote is added manually. If I typed,
[quote="Kerensky"]I think Panzer Corps is awesome![/quote]
you'd see a quote that never occurred. I have disabled BBCode in this post so that the code I typed shows instead of the resulting quote box.
Otherwise, it is just that the quote code has been slected and deleted to leave only parts of the original quote. I have no answers beyond these except forum gremlin activity.
Last edited by El_Condoro on Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am