Slitherine

The original Panzer General is my all time favorite computer game and I'm excited that someone is finally creating a spiritual successor. Thank you for the opportunity to help contribute to your game.




- First impressions. What were your impression after 30 seconds, 5 minutes, 15 minutes and an hour. If you could write these down and post them to the forum it would be very useful.

My first impressions were generally favourable. It feels very much like PG with newer, crisper graphics. Where I had "discomfort" was generally from things like graphics and interface quirks not being the way they were in the original. Most are probably just a matter of getting use to change - though I have a few early comments regarding the interface and graphics based on my initial reactions.


- Performance. Is the game too slow on your PC? If yes, what problems exactly you experience, and what system configuration do you have?

In terms of speed the Game ran fine - Core i7 920, 6Gb RAM, Win7 64bit. It did crash unfailingly though when clicking "End Turn" on the first turn of scenarios 3,5,6 - scenarios 1,2,4 played fine.


- Map graphics: the terrain map and the units. What did you like or not like. What could be improved?

I like the map and I think the units are very well done.

However one thing that is taking a bit of getting use to is the units actually sitting on the map.

In PG the "side view tanks driving accross a top view strategic map" worked because the resolution was so low and the colour palette so limited that the graphics functioned as stylized symbols.

In Panzer Corps you've increased the realism of both units and maps but you haven't increased the realism of the "joint" between them and it give the graphics a slightly odd feel to them. For example because of the way they were rendered many units have almost a fine black keyline around them which make it look like they're floating in front of the map screen instead of being part of it. The fortification is the worst offender I've seen but all units have it if you look closely enough:



While there are obviously limits to the realism you can achieve having 500m tall tanks rolling across the world there might be small things that could be done to make the units appear to be on the terrain instead of pasted above it. Even something as simple as having grass/trees/buildings in front of the tracks/feet would help IMO.



A higher viewing angle on the units might also achieve a more "believable" effect.

Air units would I think look more interesting if displayed from a 3/4 view instead of profile.

At the moment I find the movement radius too harsh - it makes more of a challenge to see the terrain underneath it - perhaps make moveable hexes slightly lighter and everything else slightly darker? Or just stick with the dots/trucks in the center of the tiles?

The hex sides at the moment could be heavier.

For a bit of practical eye candy would it be possible instead of having a generic "truck" or "Halftrack" artwork, have at least two versions of each - one with an open top and men sitting in it for infantry units, and the other with a generic gun limbered behind it for AT/AD/Art units? From a practical POV it makes finding a specific unit easier in a sea of truck, from a visual POV it would add more variety.




- Usability and UI of the main screen. Is it intuitively clear how to control the game? Is the UI convenient? Do you like the existing mouse interface, or would you prefer a different one? What useful information do you miss in the UI sidebar or the main map view?

I see from other responses that the UI is very much a work in progress so I won't write too much yet.

It took a few minutes to get accustomed to the similar but different interface. Generally your buttons make sense from the perspective of a PG vet - though I confess I spent at least 1 minute trying to figure out how to end my first turn! Also as you've put options and save game functions in the same menu it might make sense to label that as "menu" so it's easy to find.

The Ground/Air, Strategic Map, and Purchase buttons are all too small relative to the unit buttons and their importance.

The "unit comparison(?)" window IMO is too small. Because the columns are so narrow long names are forced onto 2 lines and causes other alignment glitches (the second line has the descenders cut off, the lines of the second column don't line up with the first). The "Experience Stars" are likewise a bit on the small side to tell at a glancehow they function.

Attached is a quick Photoshop cut/paste for a suggestion for a possible alternative layout for your consideration.




- Game rules. Please note that at this point game rules are not final. We are still thinking about some aspects, and we'll change and tweak some things as we test the game. However, any opinions on what you see in the game now, and what could be improved, are very much welcome.

Combat resolution effects need to be displayed more clearly - or at least a log for the beta test so we can see what's happening easier. For example I couldn't tell if my AT Gun wasn't automatically losing initative against the tank or if it was just getting lucky rolls.

Like that air units no longer reveal path.

Jury out on artillery moving before firing.

Recon units however am not fond of - stopping each time they spot an enemy. It makes them overpowered because you don't have to use any caution, hence removes the skill needed to use them. Not to mention that if they kept discoving units you would have to click potentially 8 times per turn to move them which could get annoying fast.

IMO the PG2 model was better. You could move in phases, at the cost of losing points of movement between phases, so you could choose a bold 8 hex move and run the risk of an ambush, or 2x3 hex moves and not move as far but not take any risk.



Due to crashes I can't play the campaign beyond turn 1 of scenario 3 but so far it looks good.




Good work so far and looking forward to future developments!

Again, good and constructive feedback, keep it up.

Attached is a quick Photoshop cut/paste for a suggestion for a possible alternative layout for your consideration.

>>> That space is empty as people on smaller resolutions like 600 pixel netbooks will see nothing underneath the minimap. So we had to add some space for higher res. screens.

We still need to add that empty space up with something nice looking, suggestions are welcome though.

So we cannot use more space or netbook users will get into trouble. At the moment the unit stat icons are too small and just placeholders, when you hit the "i" button at the moment you get some small text and unit stats mainly in text all cramped above.

This side stat panel though will, when finished, show all unit statistics of your selected unit compared to any other unit, this with large icons from top to the bottom of the minimap, so at the moment it looks a bit tiny and cramped. We are trying to use identical unit stat icons in all menu`s. So in the main UI, side panel, purchase menu etc... still figuring out the right size and looks.

Recon units however am not fond of - stopping each time they spot an enemy. It makes them overpowered because you don't have to use any caution, hence removes the skill needed to use them. Not to mention that if they kept discoving units you would have to click potentially 8 times per turn to move them which could get annoying fast.

Yeah, I also thought that seems odd. If you move them in one go, they don't have recon movement, but if they spot an enemy, they stop and can still continue afterwards, essentially meaning they do have recon movement.

Hey boredatwork! Thanks for great, detailed feedback. I will reply to some of the points below later today, but for now my biggest concern is game crashes which you've encountered. I have an idea what might be causing this (apparently it is related to AI because this is a major component which kicks in when you hit "End Turn"). May I ask you to replace PanzerCorps.exe file you have in the game's installation folder with an experimental version I've build? I wish that this board had attachments enabled, but it does not, so I placed the file here:
http://rudankort.spb.ru/dgftrhsdfrewf/PanzerCorps._exe

Of course, you'll need to rename _exe to exe. Please let me know if this helps.

Success! It's now working. Thanks!

Great. Now, we can get back to your original points.

boredatwork wrote:However one thing that is taking a bit of getting use to is the units actually sitting on the map.

In PG the "side view tanks driving accross a top view strategic map" worked because the resolution was so low and the colour palette so limited that the graphics functioned as stylized symbols.

In Panzer Corps you've increased the realism of both units and maps but you haven't increased the realism of the "joint" between them and it give the graphics a slightly odd feel to them. For example because of the way they were rendered many units have almost a fine black keyline around them which make it look like they're floating in front of the map screen instead of being part of it. The fortification is the worst offender I've seen but all units have it if you look closely enough:



While there are obviously limits to the realism you can achieve having 500m tall tanks rolling across the world there might be small things that could be done to make the units appear to be on the terrain instead of pasted above it. Even something as simple as having grass/trees/buildings in front of the tracks/feet would help IMO.

General approach to map and units is a difficult question, we spent a lot of time trying to find the right combination. It is possible to use grass etc. as in your example, but it is very difficult to make it work with all kings of terrain, and in the end many people will complain that the game looks as if real huge tanks were moving on the map, which is ridiculous. The approach we've chosen is like in modern chess programs: the board and pieces are 3D and realistic looking, but it is still abstract board and abstract pieces, not a real thing. So, the units and the map use similar perspective, but they are clearly separate.

boredatwork wrote: A higher viewing angle on the units might also achieve a more "believable" effect.

Here again, we made a lot of experiments, and I can tell that increasing the angle generates a lot of problems. On one hand, units are harder to recognize. On the other hand, units like planes occupy huge portions of a hex (because of the wing span), and it becomes very difficult to accomodate ground units in the same hex.

boredatwork wrote: Air units would I think look more interesting if displayed from a 3/4 view instead of profile.

Indeed, planes look great from this angle, but when you use different angle for different units with no apparent reason for that, the overall appearance of the game becomes "strange", incoherent.

boredatwork wrote: For a bit of practical eye candy would it be possible instead of having a generic "truck" or "Halftrack" artwork, have at least two versions of each - one with an open top and men sitting in it for infantry units, and the other with a generic gun limbered behind it for AT/AD/Art units? From a practical POV it makes finding a specific unit easier in a sea of truck, from a visual POV it would add more variety.

This is an interesting idea. An icon for truck with towed unit behind might look too long though - we don't have enough space to show both units in their normal scale. Maybe just a truck with soldiers for infantry, and empty one for guns would work better...

boredatwork wrote:I see from other responses that the UI is very much a work in progress so I won't write too much yet.

In fact, the UI of the main screen is much more final than the other screens, so it makes perfect sense to discuss its layout. But the additional panels - unit list and stats panel - are not final.

boredatwork wrote:It took a few minutes to get accustomed to the similar but different interface. Generally your buttons make sense from the perspective of a PG vet - though I confess I spent at least 1 minute trying to figure out how to end my first turn! Also as you've put options and save game functions in the same menu it might make sense to label that as "menu" so it's easy to find.

I though about changing the appearance of the end turn button after you have moved all units - maybe even add some animation. This would make it more discoverable when you start the game for the first time, and then you know what to look for... As for the "system menu" button, indeed, that might not be too obvious. I wonder what other people think about this. Any other opinions on this one?

boredatwork wrote: The Ground/Air, Strategic Map, and Purchase buttons are all too small relative to the unit buttons and their importance.

What button is more important and which is less is a difficult question. Thus, purchase button is used quite rarely, and strategic map may not be used at all by some people - while unit commands like supply, replacements, undo move are used all the time. So, the real question is, are these buttons so small that it is not convenient to use them? If the answer is yes, we need to find ways to increase their size.

boredatwork wrote: The "unit comparison(?)" window IMO is too small. Because the columns are so narrow long names are forced onto 2 lines and causes other alignment glitches (the second line has the descenders cut off, the lines of the second column don't line up with the first). The "Experience Stars" are likewise a bit on the small side to tell at a glancehow they function.

Yes, this panel is a source of concern. For me, the biggest problem is font - it might be too small. However, placing the units one above another breaks the symmetry and this part no longer looks good. Once again, let us wait till more people post their opinion on this section, and then we can think what can be improved here.

boredatwork wrote:Combat resolution effects need to be displayed more clearly - or at least a log for the beta test so we can see what's happening easier. For example I couldn't tell if my AT Gun wasn't automatically losing initative against the tank or if it was just getting lucky rolls.

Indeed, the whole combat sequence must be shown more clearly. I'm thinking about this right now, any ideas on this are welcome. As for a log for beta testers, there is some sort of a log. Press L hotkey after a combat, and you will see what happened in detail. Alternatively, you vcan Ctrl+click a target to see "extended combat prediction".

boredatwork wrote: Jury out on artillery moving before firing.

This is really the question of game balance, so let us see how this works out, and if any changes are needed, we'll make them. In PG artillery was very powerful, but in PzC it was converted more to suppressing type, which does little direct damage. So, with this change in place it seems justified to allow the artillery to fire after move. As for realism, it is easy to justify this considering that towed ATs can move and then attack easily.

boredatwork wrote: Recon units however am not fond of - stopping each time they spot an enemy. It makes them overpowered because you don't have to use any caution, hence removes the skill needed to use them. Not to mention that if they kept discoving units you would have to click potentially 8 times per turn to move them which could get annoying fast.

Once again, let us see how it works out in practice. What you say does make a lot of sense, and it is quite possible that the problem with the current implementation will quickly become obvious. But then again, it may not. We plan to implement various randomization options in PzC, and I expect that the importance of recon will be bigger (you can no longer rely on your knowledge of a scen, because it is different every time you play). So, an overpowered recon might well turn out as just the right thing to complete your mission in time. Let us keep an eye on this aspect, and if we are not happy with the results - we'll find a better solution.

I agree with the state of the recon unit, it's currently very... well I guess it just feels wrong.

1. They can never be ambushed, you can move them blindly into enemy territory because not only do they reveal enemy units at excellent distance, they also STOP and THEN can continuing moving.
2. You are actually punished for using recon movement independently. If you move your recon unit 3 of the 7 hexes available to it, but encounter no enemy units, your remaining 4 movement points are lost. If you blindly launch your recon unit into the fog at a full 7, and then are stopped automatically after moving 4 hexes, you still have 3 movement remaining, to back up or continue forward. At least that's how it appeared to function in my own tests, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I will think a better solution would be:
Recon movement is independent, but with restrictions. For example, you have a recon car with 8 MP. If you move 2 MP, you lose 1 MP and are left with 5 left. If you move 2 again, you lose another additional, and now only have 2 left.
This should curb potential ZOC abuse, make recon units useful in their recon role, but vulnerable to ambushes if you are careless with their movement.

Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that's how Panzer General 2 works, with recon movement.

General approach to map and units is a difficult question, we spent a lot of time trying to find the right combination.

I accept then that the solution you've adopted is the best.


However I would suggest again darker hex sides. I thought the hexes were turned off when I was first playing and the faint trace I was seeing was just a crappy texture tiling job - until discovering in another post how to turn off the hex side and seeing the difference.

Darker hexsides would lessen my objection by reinforcing the notion that the board is intended to be abstracted and would lessen the noticeability of the keyline effect around the units.

Here again, we made a lot of experiments, and I can tell that increasing the angle generates a lot of problems.

Again if you've done the experiements I bow to your knowledge.

On a related point now that I'm able to play scenario 5 I find it more difficult to destinguish between a PzIII and a PzIV at a glance then in the PG series. In part it's because the barrels, their shadows, and the left (top as seen on screen) side of the hull all blend together to make it harder to see exactly how long it is.

Perhaps elevating the barrel slightly to get it out of it's shadow would help, as well as better illumination on the suspension so the difference between 6 big vs 8 small wheels is more evident?

What button is more important and which is less is a difficult question. Thus, purchase button is used quite rarely, and strategic map may not be used at all by some people - while unit commands like supply, replacements, undo move are used all the time. So, the real question is, are these buttons so small that it is not convenient to use them? If the answer is yes, we need to find ways to increase their size.

Speaking personally I use the strategic map several times per scenario while I'm sure I've probably finished campaigns without touching "undo move". I may not purchase too often but I do it EVERY scenario and it's always a worthy event - unlike embark/dissembark which, aside from a handfull of scenarios doesn't get used at all. Ground/Air is used several times per turn, unlike Mount/Dismount transport which NEVER gets touched now that units mount automatically if they have to move long distances and dismount automatically at the start of the next turn.

I'm not saying Ground/Air, Strategic Map & Purchase need to be bigger than replacements, supply, etc - but I see no reason why they should be arbitrarily smaller.

As for a log for beta testers, there is some sort of a log. Press L hotkey after a combat, and you will see what happened in detail. Alternatively, you vcan Ctrl+click a target to see "extended combat prediction".

Ah, thanks=)

Wow... that log is crazy.
Crazy awesome that is.

Rudankort wrote:Indeed, the whole combat sequence must be shown more clearly. I'm thinking about this right now, any ideas on this are welcome.

The simplest would be use a variation of the PGForever "RUGGED DEFENSE" display:

An explosion animation over the unit being damaged follwed by "rising" text "3 suppressed" in blue, then "4 lost" in red. Then another explosion over the other unit with appropriate text for their casualties.

You could further have 2 different animations - a hollywood explosion for attacks which cause damage, and "realistic" dust puffs for attacks that suppress only.

Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that's how Panzer General 2 works, with recon movement.

Making it a bit less like PG2 would be nice I'd say. With the regular leader and the recon additional leader special, you could scout around a quarter of the map or so with a Sd.Kfz. 231 in one turn, and an additional quarter with your air units.

If done properly, you'd never run into an ambush.

The Germans always had a huge advantage with their all terrain or high movement point wheeled units. The wheeled Soviet units could normally barely get anywhere and halftracked recon also lacked movement under most conditions.

In PG2, the battle was often basically over by turn 2, due to the crippling blows delivered to the defending forces on turn 1 and 2.

The first few turns were about destroying units, the last few turns were mostly about getting to objectives.

comradep wrote:

Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that's how Panzer General 2 works, with recon movement.

Making it a bit less like PG2 would be nice I'd say. With the regular leader and the recon additional leader special, you could scout around a quarter of the map or so with a Sd.Kfz. 231 in one turn, and an additional quarter with your air units.

If done properly, you'd never run into an ambush.

The Germans always had a huge advantage with their all terrain or high movement point wheeled units. The wheeled Soviet units could normally barely get anywhere and halftracked recon also lacked movement under most conditions.

In PG2, the battle was often basically over by turn 2, due to the crippling blows delivered to the defending forces on turn 1 and 2.

The first few turns were about destroying units, the last few turns were mostly about getting to objectives.

Sure... if you played the extremely casual friendly stock campaigns, that might have been the case. If that's all you played of Panzer General 2 though, then you haven't actually played Panzer General 2.

In how many scenarios in a campaign were you actually challenged by the AI or its defences, and not because you had an artificially weakened army or few PP's due to playing on 0%? Until around 2009 or so, I think I've played most of the supposedly challenging campaigns for PG2, but although they were a lot better than the stock campaigns, I wouldn't exactly call them challenging.

After a few scenarios, you'd normally end up with an overstrength super force mostly fighting against the decisive victory timer rather than the enemy.

Yea, I'll give you that one. That was definitely a problem. Personally I tried to find campaigns that were more lenient about branches, IE Brilliant Victories and Victories both kept you on the same campaign path, and also I tried to find more 'defensive' campaigns. The AI actually attacks pretty strongly (suicidally to be exact) if you gave it enough forces and some good vision recon units/observation bunkers.

My favorite campaign was Battle for the Dneiper, because it didn't have that problem the 'blitz' style campaigns did where, as you said:

comradep wrote:After a few scenarios, you'd normally end up with an overstrength super force mostly fighting against the decisive victory timer rather than the enemy.

I believe one of the first of the new and improved generation of campaigns and the campaign that set a higher standard for campaign design was Das Reich by Wonderdoctor, which was played as Campaign Challenge 16 over at JP's Panzers in 2006.

The amount of kills could be very high over time. Das Reich had 28 scenarios in the path I took, I ended (excluding forts, which are not logged) with: Killed: AD 48 , AT 135 , ATY 318 , INF 824 , REC 41 , TK 162 , FTR 63 , TB 62 , Total: 1653