Slitherine

If two of your ground units are adjacent, havent moved yet in the current turn and both units could move to the other units hex if it was not occupied, could there be a Swap move?
The units would swap places and expend all movement (except if one is Recon).

Assuming the four adjacent units to the selected artillery and the artillery itself could still move in this turn:

Thoughts?

Edit:
Switch to Swap.

Commander Europe at War has this feature and it works as you have described it. There is also a warning dialog box in case it's not what you want to do. It's also an option rather than always on. Basically, you click on one unit, click on an adjacent unit, affirmative to the 'Do you want to switch?' question and the units change position.

This is one of the features which we are considering for the future, so to me it would be interesting to hear more opinions on this one too.

I am against it . You already have the ability to NOT need to plan as much ahead with the move shoot /shoot move option( actually not an option at all unless you edit the game files) . It will degrade the whole idea of difficult terrain and bottlenecks as you can have a front line unit get hammered, swap him out etc etc . Also there is no way that the Ai will use this (if at all) to the ability of a human.

It would change gameplay a lot.

Especially cramped city fighting scenarios we are going to see in the 1942 DLC (Sevastopol, Stalingrad) will be affected.
How will the "switch place" function be implemented? It depends if the units will be able to shoot after doing this or if they can't shoot anymore.

Encircling units would be less effective.

XXXXXXX
X00000X
X00000X
X00000X
X00000X
X00000X
XXXXXXX

This encirclement by X would not allow ANY movement by the encircled units, being potentially devastating.
But with the "switch" rule damaged units could be rotated into the center and possibly survive.

There would also be a minor inconsistency with suppression: I killed most enemy units in Sevastopol by encircling them and then attacking them while they were 100% suppressed. -> forced surrender. Why could they not switch place with the units behind them? OK, it was not their turn. I just needed it to illustrate my point.

The point I want to make is that this convenience is more than convenience and also affects gameplay in the sense that planning for such rotations is no longer necessary and much easier. While at the same time being able to rotate units and leaving spaces for retreat is one of the challenges of the upcoming urban warfare scenarios.


I don't think movement is broken or lacking, wouldn't fix what isn't broken.

As much as I wished in the past I had this option, as much I'd deny that PzC needs this feature.

With this option, the strategic part that PzC consists would be much more turned in to an arcade game.

And as I know Rudankorts opinion about "Options" I dont think this is an issue that should absorb to much time of the developers.

Just my two cents.

El_Condoro wrote:Commander Europe at War has this feature and it works as you have described it. There is also a warning dialog box in case it's not what you want to do. It's also an option rather than always on. Basically, you click on one unit, click on an adjacent unit, affirmative to the 'Do you want to switch?' question and the units change position.

Didnt know about the Commander game.

TheGrayMouser wrote:... swap him out...

Swap... Better than Switch as switch is already used for the multipurpose units.
Changing the thread name.

I believe that the basic gameplay of turn-based hexes games can be enriched with the inclusion of some advanced rules.
Some of these advanced rules are now part of PzC, the fighter escort, the artillery and AA protection of adjacent units, infantry parachuting/gliding, military and bridging engineers, recon movement, switch role ability, suppression instead of kills, paratroopers jumping extension, ambushes, etc.
Some have been left out of PzC, counter-battery fire (hate it!), overrun (still miss it), air transport (hope it gets included for some light units), etc.

Even a game as basic as Chess (basic as easy to learn rules) as some advanced rules: castling, promotion and en passant.

Longasc wrote:It would change gameplay a lot.
Especially cramped city fighting scenarios...

It would change those cramped situations. Thats the idea.

Longasc wrote:How will the "switch place" function be implemented? It depends if the units will be able to shoot after doing this or if they can't shoot anymore.

Would be able to shoot. The disadvantage would be a very reduced movement.

Longasc wrote:Encircling units would be less effective.

XXXXXXX
X00000X
X00000X
X00000X
X00000X
X00000X
XXXXXXX

This encirclement by X would not allow ANY movement by the encircled units, being potentially devastating.
But with the "switch" rule damaged units could be rotated into the center and possibly survive.

Possibly survive, yes. It would depend on what X-player would do in his turn, attack the damaged unit (ART or TAC) to destroy it or attack the new front line unit (or both, depending on available firepower).
But, on the next turn that damaged unit (if survived) would have its strength reinforced and wouldnt be able to move, could the front line unit exchange with other unit in a hex game? Doubt that, too many perimeter sides to defend.
The Swap would bring some dynamic to the game but wouldnt be an absolute game changer.

Swapping units in Commander EAW also reduces both units' effectiveness. PzC doesn't have an effectiveness stat but it could result in a 1 strength reduction for both units to reflect the effect of units moving through each other. I support the idea as long as it is optional and it wouldn't divert development away from things like a better AI and Editor functionality.

El_Condoro wrote:Swapping units in Commander EAW also reduces both units' effectiveness. PzC doesn't have an effectiveness stat...

Suppression?
As when paratroopers jump.

Much better - yes, good idea.

The Swap would bring some dynamic to the game but wouldnt be an absolute game changer.

I think it would be a huge game changer ? , nearly all set up manuevering would be based around it and would be much much easier. The AI would have to be able to use it and know when to and I'm not sure i'd like to see the ability to be able to swap and then attack. Longasc's comment about retreating units is also valid and something to consider.
Wether its a good or bad feature is hard to say, I'd have to try it.

Perhaps being able to swap like this could be a special ability for certain auxiliary units identified as highly manoeuvrable compared to other units in the scenario e.g. partisan irregulars in mountainous terrain.

It would certainly be realistic as this does happen in real life with worn out units being switched out for fresh units to the rear. Two things against the idea though would be that you can essentially do the same thing with prior planning and I would be concerned how effectively the AI could do it compared to the player.

Hmm, with all the new rules being thought aloud to to make "swapping" make sense or "fit", why not just introduce unit stacking instead? Of course then it wont be Panzer Corp anymore.
Cheers!

Would this be terrain dependent?

In other words, the idea of swapping units where the terrain would allow them to maneuver past each other makes perfect sense, but would that be feasible in a bottleneck situation, like at a river crossing or mountain gap?

I guess it would come down to ease of play vs. reality of play.

Going to ask everybody to think about this swap, as described in the first post, and while playing PzC see in which situations this would be used.
If possible then post a screenshot.

I don't think a screenie is necessary for this one: any time a unit has 3 adjacent enemy units and cannot be supplied and cannot move because friendly units are also adjacent.

It always struck me as strange, but understandable from a purely game point of view, why units cannot retreat through friendly units - I imagine they would in real life. A swap would be the equivalent of that unit retreating through the friendly unit and being replaced at the front with fresh troops. They would perhaps suffer some effectiveness loss (suppression?) and not be able to attack that turn but at least the retreating unit might find sanctuary rather than be killed because of a 'wall' of friendly units.

El_Condoro wrote:... and not be able to attack that turn.

Why?
The Swap would affect mobility not attack. The basic rule of one movement (Swap) and one attack per unit per turn would apply.

A trade-off for being able to extract a lame unit? They are covering the retreating unit but not mounting an attack? They are disrupted by the retreating unit passing through them, especially if one with vehicles that need to use limited roads? It's basically just the way I have seen it done in CEAW and it seems to work well there but it's only a suggestion.