My PC beta impressions thread

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Sun May 15, 2011 10:41 am

dshaw62197 wrote:Maubeuge (18,10) appears as a Belgian objective; however, the city is in France, so shouldn't it be French? (Of course this may be for balancing issues, just wanted to point it out.)

You are right, I place it to be Belgium because of this map:

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Sun May 15, 2011 5:24 pm

Wow, usually the West Point atlases are very reliable... looks like they messed up the Franco-Belgian border in that region.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Tue May 17, 2011 12:49 am

I wrapped up the France and Greece scenarios this weekend. I like what I see regarding the AI's defensive behavior -- it didn't rush troops out of fortified positions to launch suicide attacks. The Greece scenario was especially good, since the AI kept its units in the Matexas Line, forcing me to use heavy artillery and bombers to force the units out. I hope this is a trend that continues in future scenarios.

I am also enjoying the multiplayer experience. So far it has been very easy to get into and no obvious tech issues. However, there is a graphics glitch: when you are finished with multiplayer and log out back to the main PzC screen, a ghost image of whatever map you played on last is stuck on the screen. No big deal as it disappears as soon as you open a new scenario. One feature I'd like to see in the future for multiplayer: a status screen that pops up at the beginning of your turn, which will show you what units were lost and if any objective hexes were taken by your opponent.

Finally, I have been playing around with the scenario editor. It looks to be a VERY powerful program that will allow users to really create to their heart's content. However, it needs a lot more documentation and better descriptives so that all of its functions are more understandable. Of course I realize this is also a work in progress. It looks really good so far, hope the features will be more clear in the future.

On to Barbarossa this evening.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Tue May 17, 2011 5:53 am

I've just started the Barbarossa scenario, and I've noticed that the upgraded artillery transport loss bug has occurred again (last time it happened was Norway). I upgraded two of my artillery units to 17mm, both had half-track transports prior to upgrading. I checked in the first turn of the scenario, and both units no longer have transports. Not sure yet if this is limited to artillery or all units with organic transport; I'll check next turn by ugrading an infantry unit to see what happens.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Tue May 17, 2011 2:31 pm

I finished Barbarossa with a decisive win, so once again it is off to early Moscow. (And once again, I ask: what are the benefits/penalties for choosing either Kiev or Moscow? It didn't seem like I took a prestige hit for going to Moscow, so I'm not sure what the difference is.)

I did catch one small mistake in the briefing before choosing Moscow or Kiev. In the sentence that reads, "...the more time you spent...", "spent" should be "spend."

Hope to finish the Moscow scenario tonight. I'm also taking my first stab at creating a scenario in the editor, hope to have more info later as well.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Tue May 17, 2011 3:30 pm

dshaw62197 wrote:I've just started the Barbarossa scenario, and I've noticed that the upgraded artillery transport loss bug has occurred again (last time it happened was Norway). I upgraded two of my artillery units to 17mm, both had half-track transports prior to upgrading. I checked in the first turn of the scenario, and both units no longer have transports. Not sure yet if this is limited to artillery or all units with organic transport; I'll check next turn by ugrading an infantry unit to see what happens.

This is normal and WAD.

When you upgrade, you loose everything.

If you want your transport you have to click on it on the bottom of the screen.

When you click back and forth on units to make a decision you loose the transport. So just re-click on it.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Wed May 18, 2011 12:04 am

This is normal and WAD. When you upgrade, you loose everything.

I think this is a terrible idea. Upgrades should not penalize players by costing them their transports. This was not the case in the original PG series, and should not be here. I strongly suggest this design feature be seriously reconsidered.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:15 am

there is no penalty. It the fact when you click around on the icons you loose the transport.

You specifically have to click on it if you want it.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:23 am

Maybe I am misunderstanding... I have to click on the transport when I upgrade? Does this cost an additional expense? (That's my main concern -- having to re-pay for a transport you've already bought.)

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:16 am

Razz, I apologize. I now see what you are saying about upgrades. However, I do think it might be wise to mention somewhere (in the tutorial, perhaps?) that when you upgrade you need to "click" the appropriate organic transport or else you will lose it. Seems unfair to those who don't know that they might have to "re-buy" their transport if they forget this step.

I finished Early Moscow with a decisive win. Tomorrow it is back to England...

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:38 pm

dshaw62197 wrote:However, I do think it might be wise to mention somewhere (in the tutorial, perhaps?) that when you upgrade you need to "click" the appropriate organic transport or else you will lose it.

Or in the bug thread

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Wed May 18, 2011 6:33 pm

Or in the bug thread

Consider it done.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:55 am

OK, just hit a major bug (I assume) in a multiplayer game. I am playing against "frighteningfred", the Low Countries scenario, I am the Germans, he is the Allies. I finished my turn and sent the game back, logged out and quit (this was earlier today). I just logged into multiplayer, saw it was turn, opened up and moved a few units -- when it hit me I was playing the ALLIED side. I realized my mistake, ended the turn, and waited. Sure enough, the game popped right back up into my queue, and it was my turn as the Germans again. Not sure if this has happened to anyone yet, or if it was just something we did wrong. Either way, the game should be on the servers if someone wants to take a look.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:16 pm

I've just finished the Poland scenario in the '39 campaign using the latest beta release. Didn't find any glaring errors, so I'll post some thoughts/reactions:

1. I like the new low ammo/fuel icons. Really helps keep track of units that are in danger of losing supply. I assume "red" means you are out, how much ammo/fuel do you have in order to get the "yellow" danger icon?
2. Also like the icon for units that have fired/not fired. However, it seems you've removed the icon (slash) for units already moved. I hope this is not permanent, as now I have trouble telling what units still have movement left. Please bring this feature back!
3. For the most part, unit visability on the new tiles is good. However, I still think that units on hill terrain (such as hex 6,17 in the Poland scenario) need to have shading as well. Hope this gets added.
4. I don't like the new supression function. It seems that supression is too "light" now; more than one "round" should be instituted. Maybe a variable amount of rounds instead, so that a player knows there is a larger "window" for the supression effects to last, but doesn't know for sure just how long that is (and hence should move quickly against said supressed unit)?
5. The weather icons are clearer, but I still think the pop-up underneath should say what the weather is.
6. Glad to see the hot keys have been added to the pop-up windows for each function button.
7. I like the new armored unit sound, but maybe a bit more variety (some units could use the "old" sound, others the "new" sound)?
8. LOVE the new campaign screen... but the German-style text for each campaign name is a bit hard to read. Another typeface, maybe? (And just what is the unclickable 1936 campaign in the middle of the screen there for?

)

Overall, things are really looking good with this latest beta. I'm going to continue playing the campaign I started under the previous beta (Sea Lion 42), as well as the newly-started campaign in progress (Norway).

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Sat May 21, 2011 1:18 am

2. Also like the icon for units that have fired/not fired. However, it seems you've removed the icon (slash) for units already moved. I hope this is not permanent, as now I have trouble telling what units still have movement left. Please bring this feature back!

Well, I feel dumb... now I see the little arrow under each icon. I like it... although it might help to make it stand out a little more (either a little bigger or brighter).

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sat May 21, 2011 1:27 am

dshaw62197 wrote: 1. I like the new low ammo/fuel icons. Really helps keep track of units that are in danger of losing supply. I assume "red" means you are out, how much ammo/fuel do you have in order to get the "yellow" danger icon?

You get yellow when you only have enough fuel/ammo for one move/attack.

dshaw62197 wrote: 2. Also like the icon for units that have fired/not fired. However, it seems you've removed the icon (slash) for units already moved. I hope this is not permanent, as now I have trouble telling what units still have movement left. Please bring this feature back!

Red line won't return, a lot of people disliked it. But don't you have a small white arrow next to red crosshair, telling you that you still have a move left?

dshaw62197 wrote: 4. I don't like the new supression function. It seems that supression is too "light" now; more than one "round" should be instituted. Maybe a variable amount of rounds instead, so that a player knows there is a larger "window" for the supression effects to last, but doesn't know for sure just how long that is (and hence should move quickly against said supressed unit)?

Very often after a unit is suppressed, just one attack is enough to severely cripple it. Isn't that enough?

dshaw62197 wrote: 8. LOVE the new campaign screen... but the German-style text for each campaign name is a bit hard to read. Another typeface, maybe? (And just what is the unclickable 1936 campaign in the middle of the screen there for? )

It is clickable, just selected by default. It is tutorial campaign.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Sat May 21, 2011 2:49 am

Thanks for the response, Rudankort. I did discover the move icon; maybe it needs to be just slightly bigger, for those of us with poor eyesite LOL. As for supression, it just seems that having a unit recover so quickly from supression weakens the act of supressing. Perhaps instead of one round, supression wears off/is removed after two or three rounds? Or, if a unit is forced to retreat after supression then supression lasts another round. It just seems that now supression has swung from being too extreme to too light.

And thanks for clearing up what the 1936 campaign was... I was hoping it was maybe the Spanish Civil War LOL!

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Sat May 21, 2011 5:56 am

I finished the Norway scenario, only found two issues:

1. In the briefing, it mentions that one of your objective hexes is Namsos. However, this town is currently not an objective. Is the briefing wrong, or should Namsos be an objective? (I hope it's the latter, as it would give an extra challenge to the German player.)

2. Another hex type that needs the unit "glow" is mountains, such as hex 17,16.

Finally, I still have a hard time with the objective hexes. Perhaps there could be an option (similar to shading) where objective hexes get a "glow" similar to what is found on the strategic map (i.e., green hexes = Allies, grey hexes = German).

Next up, the Low Countries.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Sun May 22, 2011 2:07 pm

With this latest beta build, I'm finding myself playing less with the pre-packaged scenarios and campaigns and more with the multiplayer and scenario editor. With multiplayer, I have been having an absolute blast -- I really like how the multiplayer feature works, warts and all (which I know are being straightened out). On Friday night I found myself losing all track of time playing nearly a dozen multiplayer games... it felt just like it did when I first starting playing PG years ago. This game, just like PG, is VERY addictive, and is easy to get into that "just-one-more-turn" situation where you find yourself playing until the crack of dawn. So, from an old PG vet, consider PzC a success in this regard!

And the editor is VERY powerful, although it needs some serious documentation. I've already created two custom scenarios (Gibraltar and Stalingrad Pocket) and am looking to make several more as the game is updated. With the combination of user-created scenarios (Razz and Kerensky have already made some very good additions) and multiplayer feature, Panzer Corps' replayability increases tenfold. I will still continue with my '39 campaign, but with all these nice distractions it seems there just isn't enough time to do everything.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:53 pm

Singleplayer is great for a run or two through. Multiplayer is where the game really shines.
I've been championing this idea for a while now, and it's starting to show fruit. Remember, hunters is just the very first map of the very first generation of maps, so there should be much more and better maps to come.