Slitherine

Kerensky wrote: So what you're saying is to get any 1 (one, as in singular) unit added to the official game, all you have to do is:

No, I thought that those materialize in some sort of personal income. The unit I reckoned to be the welcoming gift. Anyway, reading through that forum(first time for me) I see that most of my complaints relating to the `41 campaign have actually been raised by the betatesters more than a month before. I wasn`t telling you something new. nikivdd for one was actually spot on imo. I only need to find out the story behind those Romanian cavalry officers and Romania`s military involvement into the war.

I dunno about you, but the KV-85 was worth it. I just really, really like that tank.

I wouldn`t quit my job for an I.A.R. 80, no. But kudos to you for getting more units in game.

Kerensky wrote: As for what everyone is busy doing, I can't say.

Yes, I had read that and it sounds encouraging. I just hope that graphics are part of the support and development mentioned. Not that bug fixes, more languages etc. aren`t needed, but it`s like in the Hollywood cliche with the kid getting socks for Chrismas. Of course, he needs socks too, but those he takes for granted and it`s the toys he`s wishing for.

VPaulus wrote: Can't say. But The Lordz is working in other projects besides Panzer Corps.

Yes, that`s what I was wondering about. If the talent went towards a future PzC expansion or just got diverted towards other lordz games. Is the guy responsible for the PzC models part of the permanent PzC team or was he from the general lordz umbrella? I`m tempted to think the latter as it would explain why things slowed down in that department after the main release.

Mark50 wrote:Yes, I had read that and it sounds encouraging. I just hope that graphics are part of the support and development mentioned. Not that bug fixes, more languages etc. aren`t needed, but it`s like in the Hollywood cliche with the kid getting socks for Chrismas. Of course, he needs socks too, but those he takes for granted and it`s the toys he`s wishing for.

Socks and coal for Christmas? No problem!



BTW on topic, KV-1C moves 4, T-34s move 6.

Mark50 wrote:Is the guy responsible for the PzC models part of the permanent PzC team or was he from the general lordz umbrella?

I can't say if there's only one, but he or they are not part of the permanent team.
You've to understand, and I'm sure you do, that's the life of small developers.
That doesn't mean that they won't come back again to Panzer Corps at full time. Expansions, will have more graphics, like tiles, units, etc. I'm speculating, of course.
And by the way, I'm a beta tester in "Commander: The Great War"so I can't speak much, but the graphic department is making again a really outstanding work, IMO.

Kerensky wrote: Socks and coal for Christmas? No problem!

I`d ask you how you`ve managed to come across such a thing, but we`ve derailed enough from the OP so far so I`ll cease now. But it was a very interesting thread (delightfully off topic too) and I did emerged enriched from it.

VPaulus wrote: I can't say if there's only one, but he or they are not part of the permanent team.

That makes sense.

You've to understand, and I'm sure you do, that's the life of small developers.

I`ve obviously had an incorrect opinion of how things worked in PzC`s case. I`ve now came to acquire a much better picture. And more sympathy for those guys who make up the permanent team and have to struggle with this.

That doesn't mean that they won't come back again to Panzer Corps at full time. Expansions, will have more graphics, like tiles, units, etc. I'm speculating, of course.

Here`s hoping!

And by the way, I'm a beta tester in "Commander: The Great War"so I can't speak much, but the graphic department is making again a really outstanding work, IMO.

Yep, I`ve noticed and it is the other game here that got my attention. Still, are you sure you want me over there next to bug them about missing units?

Mark50 wrote:I`ve obviously had an incorrect opinion of how things worked in PzC`s case. I`ve now came to acquire a much better picture. And more sympathy for those guys who make up the permanent team and have to struggle with this.

Rudankort, is the game main designer. He's Mr. Panzer Corps himself.
Kerensky is our greatest scenario designer. He's Mr. DLC.
uran21, I think it's also scenario designer and researcher. (correct me this please, Kerensky)

You can go to the last manual page and you'll see the credits.

Mark50 wrote:Here`s hoping!

Actually, I think it's more than hoping. It makes all the sense.

Mark50 wrote:Yep, I`ve noticed and it is the other game here that got my attention. Still, are you sure you want me over there next to bug them about missing units?

Sure.
People at Slitherine and The Lordz like to hear what people have to say. They may or may not follow, but they like to have feedback.

Interesting.

I have to apologise in some way because I watched the 1.02 equipment file.
(I working with that in Italian campaign - I still have the opinion that it would be a hell of job to update every unit on the 1.04-1.05 values - specially for the new mod-units. But this opinion can change later. )
But at least I will copy the new stats for armored units to my equpment file - as I see the T-34s (and Shermans too?) have better defense values.

Kerensky wrote:The reason we have the KV-5 was actually unintentional, but we made the most of it and put that KV-5 to good use in several DLC scenarios.

From an old, very old BETA thread.

uran21 wrote:I made a mistake and provided blueprint for KV-5 instead of KV-2.

viewtopic.php?t=22875&highlight=kv5

I would still say that the more proper values of the KV-2 should be:
- movement: 3 (only 25 km/h on road!)
- soft attack: 12 (because of the 152mm gun)
- hard attack: 7 (because it had no AP projectiles and the muzzle velocity was slow)
The low initiative is correct, because of the very slow turret and the two-part projectile.
The new icon looks also nice.

Following the "miles per hour on road / 5" the KV-1 should have 4, not 5 movement speed.
KV-2 should be 3, not 4.

Uhu wrote:Interesting.

I have to apologise in some way because I watched the 1.02 equipment file.

That explains a few things. No problem.

As for the KV-2 having 12 SA, it was just too powerful for a tank with such an early availability date. Even a 1943 pioneer attacking a KV-2 with 12 SA in close terrain would be engaging in a near suicidal attack (6-7 prediction)

I don't think that it would be a big problem. Such beasts will be softened anyway first with artillery and aircraft.

Kerensky wrote:

Uhu wrote:Interesting.

I have to apologise in some way because I watched the 1.02 equipment file.

That explains a few things. No problem.

As for the KV-2 having 12 SA, it was just too powerful for a tank with such an early availability date. Even a 1943 pioneer attacking a KV-2 with 12 SA in close terrain would be engaging in a near suicidal attack (6-7 prediction)

Heavy armor is almost immune to artillery. At best you can achieve 1 suppression. Better use Stukas or experienced level bombers to drain their ammo.

Halfway true. In about 50% of the cases, there are several supression hits and sometimes even a direct hit too. The best way is really the airforce. Plus it is a good strategy - if possible! - to fully encircle the beast and in that case only a 1 hit is mostly enough to make it retreat -> surrender.

dragos wrote:Heavy armor is almost immune to artillery. At best you can achieve 1 suppression. Better use Stukas or experienced level bombers to drain their ammo.

Kerensky wrote:

Uhu wrote:Interesting.

I have to apologise in some way because I watched the 1.02 equipment file.

That explains a few things. No problem.

As for the KV-2 having 12 SA, it was just too powerful for a tank with such an early availability date. Even a 1943 pioneer attacking a KV-2 with 12 SA in close terrain would be engaging in a near suicidal attack (6-7 prediction)

That hasn't been my experience at all.

The KV-2 setting in the AT and AA mod are 12 SA and 9 SA. The SA matches the artillery.

Without the 12SA the KV-2's are not a threat. At 12SA infantry has to avoid the KV unless you are in close defense terrain.

The KV-2's are taken out by tanks.

At 7 HA, tanks don't fear them. You can move next to them and just blow them away as they give you very little damage.
At 9 HA, tank can move next to them and do combat, but they must respect them as they will give you a couple of point damage in return fire.

At 7 HA, tanks don't fear them. You can move next to them and just blow them away as they give you very little damage.
At 9 HA, tank can move next to them and do combat, but they must respect them as they will give you a couple of point damage in return fire.

This is dependant on the year. The axis tanks in barbarossa cannot just blow them away and have good reason to be weary when there are KV 2's about. Of course by the time of late Stalingrad, Germany has built vehicles that are designed to destroy heavy tanks and can effectively engage them. Back in the old version KV 2 was still dominant even in 43 .

I actually think the old series of KV's is pretty good now but i agree with the comments on their speed. For me the new KV 85 with HA of 17 is slightly too strong considering the massive IS 2 122mm gun has HA of 18 and 88mm Tiger is also 17. Both of these guns were much more powerful.