Slitherine

Given the current air combat system, I don't think much good can come from adding complexity. The air warfare system is very unrealistic in the first place; you are effectively using helicopters. I think things are fine in the current system. Allowing ZOC still makes the air war weird; you can use bombers to trap fighters, and sometimes you'd be better off letting enemy air units run out of fuel. So there would still be exploits.

However, I think that in a sequel, the old PG air unit system should just be scrapped and replaced with a mission system. It is far more realistic, easier to balance, and won't make the air units too complicated. After all the Civilization series did this starting in Civ3, never looked back, and it works fine. Plus, this allows the Panzer Corps series to transcend the PG series; the goal isn't just to clone PG, but to improve upon it.

deducter wrote:However, I think that in a sequel, the old PG air unit system should just be scrapped and replaced with a mission system. It is far more realistic, easier to balance, and won't make the air units too complicated. After all the Civilization series did this starting in Civ3, never looked back, and it works fine. Plus, this allows the Panzer Corps series to transcend the PG series; the goal isn't just to clone PG, but to improve upon it.

PG approach has its advantages. It is very simple, does not require you to learn any new rules and UI, compared to ground combat, and supports a wide array of features. Being "normal" units, air units can be bought, replaced, over-strengthed, upgraded, awarded with medals/heroes, deployed or kept in reserve etc. They compete with ground units for prestige and slots, which forces the player to find the right balance between ground and air force. Air system in PG models a number of aspects, like intercepting enemy bombers, covering friendly bombers, scouting with planes, reducing enemy supply with planes, mass attacks of one enemy unit with several. If enemy city/unit is far from your airfields, getting there takes more time, and effectiveness of planes is naturally limited. You cannot concentrate all of your air force on a single unit either, it is limited "one unit per hex" rule. Etc. etc. I dunno, translating all these features to air missions in a meaningful, simple and intuitive way is not an easy task.

Seeing all those different planes flying around the map is not a bad thing either.

As for "realism", this is all relative. On low level PG mechanics may not make much sense, but the end result of it is pretty realistic, and this is what really matters.

In other words, I'm not convinced. I'm not saying that PG air mechanics is perfect, it has its problems which need to be addressed, but I'm not so sure air missions is the way to go either. I'd be happy to hear your arguments, not just references to Civilization which is a different game with different priorities. BTW, better to discuss this in a separate thread.

ThvN wrote: Or would the discarding/attaching of transports only occur during the deployment fase, with the possible option of discarding the transport during the scenario, but than it would only be available to attach again during the next deployment fase?

This is a good question, which I don't have an answer to yet. But most likely, dropped transport should be reusable during the scen already. Otherwise it will feel strange: you can still upgrade your unit to use a transport, but you pay money for it, even though there is a "free" transport in the pool. I would say that upgrades during the battle must be forbidden altogether, or if they are allowed, they must access available equipmnet pool. I can see how it can be exploited, but upgrading a unit still takes an extra turn, and, just as you say, other types of transports which exist in the game, are probably even more exploit-prone.

ThvN wrote: If transports were separate units on the map, this sort of thing would be very difficult to do, and managing these extra transports would not be very bothersome I think, some players might even find it very interesting.

I can see potential advantages of this system, but I'm not sure increased number of micromanagement will justify it. Extra unit is extra unit, it gets in the way everywhere (in all units lists, on the map, in next unit sequence etc.) Look at naval invasion scenarios, what will happen to all those landing craft after ground units disembark? Will they stay on map? And if so, this can be prone to exploits too. What happens if in Sea Lion I disembark and then use empty transports to screen the enemy fleet from my ground units? Will it be good? I don't think so.

How will these separate transport units work, anyway? Will they scout map? Block movement of enemy units? Project ZOC? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", the door is open to all kinds of exploits.

ThvN wrote: Oh, and about the ZoC for planes, it's just my opinion but I think a ZoC for air wouldn't work very well under the current system. I'm trying to think what the practical consequences would be. Say, if a bomber is escorted by fighters, they could all be 'bounced' by a single enemy fighter, who could be strength one and out of ammo, but it would still take several powerful air units out of the fight, wasting their turn and fuel.

Exactly. And there are more exploits too. I remember how in PG people used their planes to trap enemy planes during rain/snow, to force them to run out of fuel and crash. Or take the "fighter screen" idea. You can place several fighters two hexes apart, and create a big wall which enemy air units cannot penetrate. I don't think we really want all these mechanics back in the game.

ThvN wrote: If you want to make air warfare more interesting, maybe make it a bit more '3D'. Ideas/inspiration: Currently there are bonuses/penalties for high-flying and low-flying air units when attacking (-5 to ground defense for the latter). But what if a player could choose (switch) between high or low? A bit hard perhaps to represent in the UI, it could get too messy or busy-looking, but not very problematic either I think.

Interesting idea, but requires more thought. In fact, the modders could already do this and test how it will work in practice. Would be interesting to hear the results of such an experiment.

Why not make a trait and call it FLAK.

Properties -2 Ground Defence

Make it applicable only to Class 7 which is fighter unit.

Use the trait for light AA units.

Now when a fighter attack a light AA unit or the Light AA unit attacks a fighter, the Light AA will have the advantage and kill one or two more strength points.

I think this will satisfy everyone and be easy to implement.

Razz1 wrote:Why not make a trait and call it FLAK.

Not sure I understood this suggestion. What problem does it try to solve?

By reducing the GD when an light AA is attacked or is attacking a fighter, they will be much better than large AA like the 8.8cm or 7.5cm because they will hit more strength points against fighters.

It will bring the value up of light AA where players will want to have on in the core to defend and attack fighters.

Rudankort wrote:I can see potential advantages of this system, but I'm not sure increased number of micromanagement will justify it. Extra unit is extra unit, it gets in the way everywhere (in all units lists, on the map, in next unit sequence etc.) Look at naval invasion scenarios, what will happen to all those landing craft after ground units disembark? Will they stay on map? And if so, this can be prone to exploits too. What happens if in Sea Lion I disembark and then use empty transports to screen the enemy fleet from my ground units? Will it be good? I don't think so.

How will these separate transport units work, anyway? Will they scout map? Block movement of enemy units? Project ZOC? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", the door is open to all kinds of exploits.

Thanks for the feedback, your critisism is very appreciated (and valid). And yes, I know a lot of ideas probably won't work well or will complicate things to much to fit in with the game. That's the difficult part, keeping it simple and workable. Sealion is a very good example where simply having transports separately on the map will cause many problems for little benefit. Still, that doesn't stop me thinking about a possible solution...

The way it works now is that the player receives a 'scenario' pool of transports (air/sea/rail), where they disappear back into a pool when they are left behind, which is a fine and simple system, but I dislike the fact that they can be 'teleported' deep into enemy territory to pick up a friendly unit. But being unable to get any type of tranport when a unit is too far into enemy territory is too harsh I think, so maybe there is some sort of middle ground possible.

Maybe the transports should only be able to appear on certain 'transport deployment' hexes, and if a unit is in such a hex it works as it does now: summon a transport, they can enter it immediately and can travel with it. If the unit is further away, than the transports have to travel from those deployment points to pick up units that are further away. Does that make sense? Which still leaves the very valid and problematic point about all kinds of transports roaming around the map. As you said, you need rules to govern the behaviour of the empty transports as units, and some motivation to not use these 'free' units for exploits, like suicidal scouting missions and blockades. Mmmh...

Well, to discourage that, another idea could be to 'rent' or 'lease' the transports? Whenever you summon a transport, an amount of prestige must be paid (depending on what type of transport) as a down payment, and as soon as the transport is returned to the pool, this amount of prestige is returned to you (maybe not even all of it?). If the transport unit is lost this means you lose the prestige and the transport unit.

I'm not sure if this would work with pre-placed transports, and another problem occurs when a player simply doesn't have enough prestige to deploy transports in the deployment fase of amphibious scenarios. That would require a solution, like a scenario-dependent amount of freely available transports which do not get added to the transport pool if they are discarded, so free but single-use only. But than I still haven't adressed your most valid critism, what rules would apply to empty transport units on the map?

Random thoughts: Empty transports should be a very easy target, could quickly be surrendered or scuttled, like when a landing craft is caught in a harbor under the current system. So keeping them on the map unnecessarily could be a very costly tactic, and the friendly units that operate deep in enemy territory (paratroopers) will be riskier to pick up than just shuffling some long-range artillery behind the frontline.

All in all, just ideas, I'm fairly satisfied with the current system, but if improvements are possible without too many problems, I would be in favour. But improving a good thing is never easy...

Rudankort wrote:Interesting idea, but requires more thought. In fact, the modders could already do this and test how it will work in practice. Would be interesting to hear the results of such an experiment.

Well, that theory was more aimed at Jelinobas and Tarrak's discussion. I don't feel the need to change the air unit system as it is now, but now that you mention it some experimentation might be interesting.


And in response to Razz1's suggestion, I have a similar idea, but I approach it from the opposite side. In my opinion, big AAA guns are not effective enough against level bombers (esp. experienced ones). But simply giving these guns more air attack makes them too powerful against fighters and tac bombers, esp. against low-altitude attacks.

So maybe a 'flak' trait would give an AA gun the following capability: increased attack against level bombers. Resulting in a gun that will be better against level bombers but equally effective against the rest of the air units. This is to specialize the heavy AAA as protection against level bombers, without making them too powerful against the others.

And if the heavy AAA needs to be specialized even further (not necessary, I think, I'm just brainstorming here) maybe at the same time the trait will cause the low altitude attack penalty (the current -5 ground defense penalty for a fighter/tac bomber) to be ignored. If the trait also ignores the low altitude penalty, the gun will be less effective against low-level attacks, while staying more effective against level bombers and equally effective against the rest. This would make ordinary (small/medium) AAA better at defending against low altitude attacks, specializing the AAA roles even further.

Making traits for AA units is worth testing.

In layman terms: all they know is light AA is good for Fighters/Tactical and Heavy AA is good for Bombers/Tactical
Then when they play the game they will see a difference between the units in combat and make a judgement as to which units to buy.

deducter wrote:Given the current air combat system, I don't think much good can come from adding complexity. The air warfare system is very unrealistic in the first place; you are effectively using helicopters. I think things are fine in the current system. Allowing ZOC still makes the air war weird; you can use bombers to trap fighters, and sometimes you'd be better off letting enemy air units run out of fuel. So there would still be exploits.

However, I think that in a sequel, the old PG air unit system should just be scrapped and replaced with a mission system. It is far more realistic, easier to balance, and won't make the air units too complicated. After all the Civilization series did this starting in Civ3, never looked back, and it works fine. Plus, this allows the Panzer Corps series to transcend the PG series; the goal isn't just to clone PG, but to improve upon it.

Speaking of helicopters and air mission bring up People's General to my mind immediately. Which I consider had the best game mechanics of all PG like games, but I also liked the way air units where handled by Steel Panther.

Dragoon wrote:Speaking of helicopters and air mission bring up People's General to my mind immediately. Which I consider had the best game mechanics of all PG like games, but I also liked the way air units where handled by Steel Panther.

I was thinking about PeG when writing my reply. I did not play this game for a loooong time, but I checked its manual. What I found there was a pretty abstract air system, with air points and 5 types of air missions - but no air units types, no rich selection of different fighters and bombers and that kind of stuff. It may be fine for a cold war game - modern air warfare is very different from ww2. But this is exactly what I would like to avoid in Panzer Corps series.

ThvN wrote: Thanks for the feedback, your critisism is very appreciated (and valid). And yes, I know a lot of ideas probably won't work well or will complicate things to much to fit in with the game. That's the difficult part, keeping it simple and workable. Sealion is a very good example where simply having transports separately on the map will cause many problems for little benefit. Still, that doesn't stop me thinking about a possible solution...

This is fine, I also see the problems with existing system, and agree that some improvement is in order.

ThvN wrote: The way it works now is that the player receives a 'scenario' pool of transports (air/sea/rail), where they disappear back into a pool when they are left behind, which is a fine and simple system, but I dislike the fact that they can be 'teleported' deep into enemy territory to pick up a friendly unit. But being unable to get any type of tranport when a unit is too far into enemy territory is too harsh I think, so maybe there is some sort of middle ground possible.

Well, various approaches are possible here. For example:
- When you disembark a unit from a transport, this transport does not return to the pool immediately, but with a several turns delay. This would model the fact that the transport is not "teleported" but moved to a different location.
- We could reuse the same mechanism which is already used for purchases/upgrades: when you grab a city or an airfield, it cannot be used for purchasing units instantly. Maybe it should not be used for embarking for some turns too.

These are just quick ideas from the top of my head.

But I have a feeling that a real solution to this problem should be connected with solution to purchase problem. If you use paratroopers to capture a city deep behind the line, you should not be able to buy units there. I'm not sure what kind of rules would work best here, but whatever we do, connecting embark case to these rules sounds like a reasonable idea.

ThvN wrote: Random thoughts: Empty transports should be a very easy target, could quickly be surrendered or scuttled, like when a landing craft is caught in a harbor under the current system. So keeping them on the map unnecessarily could be a very costly tactic, and the friendly units that operate deep in enemy territory (paratroopers) will be riskier to pick up than just shuffling some long-range artillery behind the frontline.

The problem is, there are no "easy" targets in this game. Any target takes attack action to kill (and this attack action could spent on another, more important, unit), you may need to move up to that unit to kill it (thus spending move action too, and maybe getting sidetracked from more important objectives), you still spend one point of ammo etc. In fact, this is the way by which game balance is kept under control. I'm not afraid of heroes giving big attack bonuses to units, because they still have only one attack per turn.

ThvN wrote: And in response to Razz1's suggestion, I have a similar idea, but I approach it from the opposite side. In my opinion, big AAA guns are not effective enough against level bombers (esp. experienced ones). But simply giving these guns more air attack makes them too powerful against fighters and tac bombers, esp. against low-altitude attacks.

Yes, I think this is the right direction for thinking. I remember in the past we had a plan to make light and heavy AAs different by making light AAs weak but with much bigger rate of fire, to make them effective against low-altitude attacks of fighters and dive bombers. Heavy AAs would have much lower ROF, but much more power, which would make them effective against strategic bombers, but not so effective against fighters and tacs. But this idea slipped, because AA class as a whole was not so popular, and so balancing units inside it was considered low priority, compared to other classes.

Rudankort wrote: I was thinking about PeG when writing my reply. I did not play this game for a loooong time, but I checked its manual. What I found there was a pretty abstract air system, with air points and 5 types of air missions - but no air units types, no rich selection of different fighters and bombers and that kind of stuff. It may be fine for a cold war game - modern air warfare is very different from ww2. But this is exactly what I would like to avoid in Panzer Corps series.

While checking out the manual did you take a look at the sophisticated PeG spotting system? Instead of the classic spotting is all or nothing it's more complex. I think the strategy guide explains it best.

http://www.pegww2.net/Documents/PeG_Strategy_Guide3.pdf
Short form
Spotting
There are three different levels of spotting.
The fully spotted is like PC, you see and know all.
The partially spotted just shows you the icon. Your may be able to recognize exactly what type of unit it is, but you won't know the strength or any other details.
The barely spotted simply shows a regiment symbol meaning there's something there.
If you attack anything other than a fully spotted unit, you suffer a combat deduction.
Recon units not only spot other units, but make your own units harder to spot.

Long form
3. SPOTTING RULES
One of the major areas of change in People’s General is the spotting rules.
The first change is that there are three levels of spotting.
The first is identified. This is for fully visible units. The strength value is visible and
details concerning the unit can be obtained with a right click of the mouse.
The second is spotted. This shows the unit icon but no strength value is shown.
The third is unknown. This shows the infantry regiment symbol.
The basic level of spotting is determined by the “effective range” of the unit from the
observer and the spotting range of the observer.
The primary item for determining the effective range is the number of hexes
between the observer and the unit.
For up to two hexes less than full spotting range, a unit will be identified. For up to
one hex less than full spotting range, a unit will be spotted. At full spotting range,
the unit will be unknown.
These rules apply during daylight and clear weather.
Page 10 of 56 People’s General Strategy Guide, Revision 1.0
There are various factors that adjust the effective range.
The first is profile. For every profile value less than 2, 1 is added to the effective
range (profile of 1 adds 1 hex, profile of 0 adds 2 hexes, etc.). For every profile
value over 3, 1 is subtracted from the effective range.
Friendly recon units work to reduce the profile of friendly units. Scouts will reduce
the profile of adjacent friendly units by 3. Units 1 hex away have their profile
reduced by 2. Units 2 hexes away have their profile reduced by 1.
This benefit does not apply to recon units themselves. They can be spotted at two
to three times the listed range of your observer.
Spotting results are cumulative. If you have two units that individually would provide
a spotted result of the enemy unit, the unit is identified. By the same token, the
screening capabilities of recon units are also cumulative.
At night all spotting ranges are halved.
Overcast will reduce everyone's profile by 1. Rain and snow will halve spotting
ranges.
A unit in covered terrain (cities, woods, etc.) has its profile reduced by 1.

Dragoon wrote: While checking out the manual did you take a look at the sophisticated PeG spotting system? Instead of the classic spotting is all or nothing it's more complex. I think the strategy guide explains it best.

I did not check it this time, but I'm aware of this system and I'm indeed thinking about doing some more sophisticated spotting rules in PzC series.

What about an automatic save feature after each battle? If you forget, then you can't go back to the last battle, you have to go back to the last time you saved it.