Really Liking the Gustav Rail Gun

[boredatwork]

I was checking out the Wikipedia page on the Gustav Rail Gun and note that it was employed briefly against Stalingrad as well as Leningrad. As such, I would advocate a patch to allow these guns to be employed in the DLC scenarios to provide a semblance of historical reality.

God no.

The Gustav as implemented in the game has nothing to do with historical reality. If you want to use cheat codes to play around with them then by all means. But don't ruin the scenarios by making another dud of a german "wonder weapon" into something far more effective than it was historically.

Don't be such a crashing bore. I know that it would be a mod or cheat code feature. Slitherine is not going to mess around with the DLC's. They are already onto other projects.

No, YOU asked for it to be incorporated as a standard feature in the DLC and I quote "to provide a semblance of historical reality." I'm merely pointing out that your sense of "historical reality" leaves something to be desired. For a start READ the wikipedia link you posted and compare the date the Gustav was deployed to leningrad (and NOT used) with the date of the Leningrad scenarios in the DLC.

Gustav was meant to be a wonder weapon, not something you would bring to every fight, realism shouldn't be too high on the list for these things. Afterall, PzC is just a game, not a digital recreation of WW2. Few things in PzC are realistic, for example, there is nothing realistic about heroes that can increase the range of your artillery. An artillery with range 1 can potentially get three +1 range heroes, quadrupling its range. This is totally unrealistic but it makes the game fun.

Realism shouldn't be too high on the list, but for a historical wargame it should still be on the list.

The game has a high degree of abstraction (air units that go for days/weeks without refueling for example) but it should still attemp to be internally consistant. One weapon generally had strengths and weaknesses compared to another, and within it's limits the game tries to be evocative of that to a degree.

There is of course subjective judgement involved with the degree of historical liberty taken with the game - what might be acceptable to one is unacceptable to another. I for example have no problem with single +range leaders (in 5 GC play throughs I have never had more than 1 per unit - are you sure that is possible??) because I can assume the weapon range is not the maximum range the weapon can reach, mearely the average *effective* range it can provide fire support. A +range leader simply has better trained spotters, staff, and communications OR in some cases a unit favored with more extended range shells/charges than average to enable it to move it's average effective range out farther to it's maximum physical firing range.

The Gustav on the otherhand is probably tied with the V-weapons as the unit that are too inconsistant with the game's reality for me to remotely find an excuse to justify their abilities.

How does a gun that historically took 4-6 weeks just to set up to fire in the game zip around at speeds faster than any ground unit? Was it mounted on an Inter City Express train? Similarly at the end of it's move it the crew can immediately lay the special double track curve, assemble the multiple carriage pieces and immediately fire the same turn (or provide defensive fire!) while the poor crew of an 10.5cm lFH takes until next turn just to unhitch the gun from the truck and spread the trails.

While the time/map scale inconsistancies in the game required the gun being made mobile for gameplay reasons, they could have done a much better job at capturing it's essence while still making it playable. Specifically I would have at least made it a switchable unit - with firing mode and travel mode. While in firing mode it would be immobile. While in travel mode it would be defenseless but would be able to move 3-5(?) rail hexes. Changing back to firing mode could be done on any rail hex but would take a turn like current rail transport.

While still not realistic in an absolute sense it would at least ***feel*** more like a ***siege*** weapon instead of some science fiction piece of crap. It's incredible power being balanced by it's lack of mobility relative to ***every other artillery piece in the german army***.



edit - *excluding coast defense artillery obviously.

[Zhivago]

Boredatwork--Dude, you have too much time on your hands (or you truly are bored at work). It's Friday afternoon at about quitting time where I am, and although I usually would be in the mood for a good debate on this topic, I just don't care what you think, or have interest in replying. Have a Happy St. Patrick's Day!

[boredatwork]

I just don't care what you think,

Glad to see internet courtesy is alive and well.

Happy almost St. Patrick's day.

[Zhivago]

I just don't care what you think,

Glad to see internet courtesy is alive and well.

Happy almost St. Patrick's day.

Slainte!

[ThvN]

So, time to post the modified equipment file... Zhivago, I put in the changes you wanted earlier, and made similar changes to the Karl Gerät, so you can play around with that as well. I did a quick test, and as I feared it is now some mad 'Unit Removal Tool', hope you like it. Oh, and you must have cheated it to 11 points, because in the stock game it wouldn't reinforce unless I used cheat codes (str #). You didn't let Spinal Tap near it, did you?

And I made an extra rail unit available should you desire more realism, check the artillery purchase screen, the armoured train is now available to buy as well.

The .zip contains two files, the modified file (equipment.pzeqp), you can put that in the ...Panzer Corps\Data folder (overwriting the original, so make a backup). Or you can put it in a DLC folder ( e.g. ...Panzer Corps\DLC\GC39\Data), but the changes will only work in that DLC.

If you put it in your main folder your multiplayer games will show you as a nasty cheating person, if you don't want that you can it put it in the data folders of the DLC's. And if you have copied this new file remember it won't work on games in progress; you need to start a new scenario to see the changes.

As it is nearly Saint Patrick's Day, a backup of the original game file is included (equipment_V113original.pzeqp) in the zip, should you mess something up , remove the _V113original bit from the filename and you than have a stock equipment file for version 1.13.

[deducter]

Well, from a design standpoint I don't see how it's possible to simultaneously please both the historical accuracy crowd and the powergaming crowd. If anyone is familiar with BG2 modding at all, it's the debate between Sword Coast Stratagems and Improved Anvil. What I think would be nice is to have designer support for both options, implemented via improved/more differentiated difficulty levels or via more official support for modding.

[Zhivago]

So, time to post the modified equipment file... Zhivago, I put in the changes you wanted earlier, and made similar changes to the Karl Gerät, so you can play around with that as well. I did a quick test, and as I feared it is now some mad 'Unit Removal Tool', hope you like it. Oh, and you must have cheated it to 11 points, because in the stock game it wouldn't reinforce unless I used cheat codes (str #). You didn't let Spinal Tap near it, did you?

And I made an extra rail unit available should you desire more realism, check the artillery purchase screen, the armoured train is now available to buy as well.

The .zip contains two files, the modified file (equipment.pzeqp), you can put that in the ...Panzer Corps\Data folder (overwriting the original, so make a backup). Or you can put it in a DLC folder ( e.g. ...Panzer Corps\DLC\GC39\Data), but the changes will only work in that DLC.

If you put it in your main folder your multiplayer games will show you as a nasty cheating person, if you don't want that you can it put it in the data folders of the DLC's. And if you have copied this new file remember it won't work on games in progress; you need to start a new scenario to see the changes.

As it is nearly Saint Patrick's Day, a backup of the original game file is included (equipment_V113original.pzeqp) in the zip, should you mess something up , remove the _V113original bit from the filename and you than have a stock equipment file for version 1.13.

Thanks ThvN! That's very kind of you! I will download it and try it this weekend and let you know how it goes!

[ThvN]

More official support for modding would be nice, yes. Something like the GME to allow people to quickly select mods to play with. And as of game design, I can see the issue from a lot of sides: I usually try to think what would fit best with the intention of the designer/modder when helping other people. But I have my own opinion as well, and if I am asked for my opinion and people feel the need to 'correct' it, well they better bring some decent arguments. And if they do, than I respect their opinion a lot more. But I don't have to change mine as a result.

I've done small mods by request in past for friends who wanted to play around with games, and I don't care much why they want it, as long as they like it. Some arguments are very simple but are nevertheless important, and if someone says: "I just want to have some fun", than that is a valid argument. "I want more historical accuracy" is also a valid argument. I can follow both lines of reasoning, and to me they are both right, as long as their ideas are consistent with their (stated) motivation. Their arguments for their particular 'needs' are OK, so why should I care that it is not my playing style.

Have fun= make some overpowered BFG. More realism= nerf the thing to make it more like an anvil on wheels. Simple.

Perhaps we should organize PzC matches to settle any forum disputes...

[boredatwork]

Well, from a design standpoint I don't see how it's possible to simultaneously please both the historical accuracy crowd and the powergaming crowd.

From a design standpoint I don't see how it's possible to please either the historical accuracy crowd or the powergaming crowd at all, never mind simultaneously.

You'd never get people to agree on a single interpretation of history in order to design a game that simulates it.

Similarly IMO it would be near impossible to design a game to satisfy powergamers given that *many* of them credit success to their extraordinary tactical ability while crediting failure to a broken unbalanced game.

[ThvN]

From a design standpoint I don't see how it's possible to please either the historical accuracy crowd or the powergaming crowd at all, never mind simultaneously.

If you use a single formula, the more players you try to please, the more you will end up dissapointing I think. But overspecialize, and you'll remain a niche product. Niche products are usually 'not economically viable', however good they may be. Deducter points to a system of a lot of user configurable settings, this can help those who know how to get the best from those, or else the modders must come to the rescue. And this issue is compounded by the infamous 'vocal minority', which can overrule the 'silent but content majority' to their detriment.

I hope that PzC won't evolve too much, but the game seems in good hands as of now. The dev team is extremely responsive but at the same time they seem to have firm goals in mind. No 'design by committee' here it seems.

I guess that is why the 'PzC goes greenlight' thread drew so much apprehensive comments, I think it's not that peope fear a couple of 'noob' comments on the forum, but there is a deeper fear of the game evolving towards the lowest common demoninator under pressure of an expanded player base that they think will not appreciate the game like the current players do. Some comments would seem to indicate people fear going on steam will end up with the SE units becoming a 'pay-to-unlock' premium package or something.

DSWargamer made a good post about elitist sentiments, and I agree. The recent 'dice chess' cheat thread exposed the same fears of changing the basic formula.

You'd never get people to agree on a single interpretation of history in order to design a game that simulates it.

Ah, how I enjoy revisionism, although the word has taken on a sinister meaning. It's always nice finding out how a lot of 'facts' are subject to opinion.

Similarly IMO it would be near impossible to design a game to satisfy powergamers given that *many* of them credit success to their extraordinary tactical ability while crediting failure to a broken unbalanced game.

Would these 'powergamers' be also the same people that whine the most whenever there is a small change in any relevant statistic, which for some reason always seems to target them directly? Or are they more the type to point out how X unit/weapon could beat Y, although neither of those ever went of the drawing board?