Slitherine

I hope nobody opened yet a tread about this theme.
I know many concerned already about the unhistorical values of the T-34 tanks. They have the same value for ground defense as the PzIVF which is not real.
But I like to write about some KV tank issues.

1., These tanks were slow - much slower than the T-34s. It think the movement value of 5 is too high, particularly if we look at the movement values of for example the Italian M11-M12 light tanks which have only a value of 4.

2., KV-2. This vehicle was a heavy breakthorugh tank with a 152mm howitzer. So, more an armored, moving artillery but it had also anti-tank projectiles, so OK, let's use it as a tank. But it's unit icon is totally false. Look at several pictures on the internet and you would know what I mean.

3., KV-5. It was cancelled project so no tanks of that type was ever built (as I know). I don't understand why a fictional type of KV was put in the game when there were others (KV-IS, KV-85), which could be used with about the same values.

Uhu wrote:But it's unit icon is totally false. Look at several pictures on the internet and you would know what I mean.

Could you elaborate on that? I for one can`t spot such severe problems to the unit`s aspect.

The gun lenght is far not so long - but it is much thicker.

Mark50 wrote:

Uhu wrote:But it's unit icon is totally false. Look at several pictures on the internet and you would know what I mean.

Could you elaborate on that? I for one can`t spot such severe problems to the unit`s aspect.

Wondered about the KV-5 as well, but otoh there's German equipment that was only rarely used or not used at all, and didn't make it beyond prototype stage (Maus, some later aircraft), so why not give other nations similar stuff.

bebro wrote:there's German equipment that was only rarely used or not used at all, and didn't make it beyond prototype stage (Maus, some later aircraft), so why not give other nations similar stuff.

You know, now that you`ve mentioned it I wonder in how many missions are the Maus and KV-5 used. I know the Maus is present in one of the 3 american missions, but don`t remember other instances of it. Because I got this:

Kerensky wrote:But the bottom line is we cannot expect our artists to come up with new unit icons for every single scenario, especially when these units only ever see use once and never again.

as a reply when asking about proper markings for the yugoslav T-26 and Me-109(the one with the german cross) and for historical units for countries like Romania(for example a Skoda LT 35 or Renault R35 instead of the never used Somua S35). In the end I think the mainstream cool factor is actually the "bottom line".

Mark50 wrote:...proper markings for the yugoslav T-26 and Me-109(the one with the german cross) and for historical units for countries like Romania(for example a Skoda LT 35 or Renault R35 instead of the never used Somua S35). In the end I think the mainstream cool factor is actually the "bottom line".

Romanian units are already created by dragos.
I think if you ask one of the unit icon makers they will create you units with proper markings.

For the KV-5 issue: if we speak about advanced or prototype units, there were many others which were at least built. From the KV-5 never was built any.

Uhu wrote: Romanian units are already created by dragos.

I know. And he`s doing a great job, but unfortunately only in 2d and personally I`d like things uniform. Having a mix of photos and renders for the info cards seems disruptive to me.

I think if you ask one of the unit icon makers they will create you units with proper markings.

I haven`t seen much enthusiasm though. bebro seems absorbed into the USMC and he recently took kerloc away with him so that left my hopes in limbo on that front.

Anyway, my point is that such things should be in the main game. I`d rather spend my time playing the game than working - pro bono - on it. I know I shouldn`t expect wall to wall cover of the event and I`ve never hoped to see complete (and completely historical) unit rosters for Hungary, Romania, Holland etc., but I was hopping to see at least a basic sketch of their most important/representative equipment even if some types would be skipped or substituted with more common types. But those nations in fact have no tanks, no aircraft, no recons etc. The impression I`m personally getting is that they don`t matter from an official perspective.

By reading the game`s description on the official site:

Panzer Corps Wehrmacht puts the player in charge of Axis armies, taking their core force with them through the entire war.

The game is absolutely huge:
(...)
- Nations: all major and many minor nations are represented: Germany, Italy, Poland, France, Great Britain, USA, USSR, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Albania, Romania, Greece and more.

you`d be forgiven for not expecting to see the Netherlands sporting a total of 2 unit types(dutch infantry and 7-veld artillery). If german and russian prototypes are in then some of the actually used equipment ought to be in there also, even if it`s not directly in the hands of the Soviet Union, England, USA and Germany.

Mark50 wrote:

bebro wrote:there's German equipment that was only rarely used or not used at all, and didn't make it beyond prototype stage (Maus, some later aircraft), so why not give other nations similar stuff.

You know, now that you`ve mentioned it I wonder in how many missions are the Maus and KV-5 used. I know the Maus is present in one of the 3 american missions, but don`t remember other instances of it. Because I got this:

Kerensky wrote:But the bottom line is we cannot expect our artists to come up with new unit icons for every single scenario, especially when these units only ever see use once and never again.

as a reply when asking about proper markings for the yugoslav T-26 and Me-109(the one with the german cross) and for historical units for countries like Romania(for example a Skoda LT 35 or Renault R35 instead of the never used Somua S35). In the end I think the mainstream cool factor is actually the "bottom line".

You're missing one thing. PzC does have some alternative scenarios. Those units were made thinking on those possibilities.
PzC was never meant to be 100% historical accuracy.
The game is to be played by different kind of people. And some, believe it or not, do like those alternative and prototype units. As the game it's now it's possible to be played by both type of players.
Everybody has his personal agenda and his own reasons, for which units and which scenarios should be included with the original PzC. Of course they could have added all WW2 units. But that's unrealistic has you might understand.

Mark50 wrote: Anyway, my point is that such things should be in the main game. I`d rather spend my time playing the game than working - pro bono - on it. I know I shouldn`t expect wall to wall cover of the event and I`ve never hoped to see complete (and completely historical) unit rosters for Hungary, Romania, Holland etc., but I was hopping to see at least a basic sketch of their most important/representative equipment even if some types would be skipped or substituted with more common types. But those nations in fact have no tanks, no aircraft, no recons etc. The impression I`m personally getting is that they don`t matter from an official perspective.

Be not so strict: even more units are in PC as were in PG and these have even more special abilities. For the main campaing these units were enough. What purpose has a unit if you don't see it in the campaign? Not much, I think.
It is always a question how 'deep' the several units of the minor nations should be created. There is the Combat Mission series where really much is produced but still you could find gaps.
Look positive: it is good that we have modders who create icons and values for units and that it is possible - many wargames are hard-coded so even if you would create extra units you have not the chance for that.[/b]

Uhu wrote:Be not so strict: even more units are in PC as were in PG and these have even more special abilities. For the main campaing these units were enough. What purpose has a unit if you don't see it in the campaign? Not much, I think.
It is always a question how 'deep' the several units of the minor nations should be created. There is the Combat Mission series where really much is produced but still you could find gaps.
Look positive: it is good that we have modders who create icons and values for units and that it is possible - many wargames are hard-coded so even if you would create extra units you have not the chance for that.[/b]

Exactly. These are my thoughts.

I feel you`ve been a bit patronizing towards me in your post and in my opinion gratuitously. Perhaps you haven`t read my entire post or missed something. To address the points:

VPaulus wrote: You're missing one thing. PzC does have some alternative scenarios. Those units were made thinking on those possibilities.

I don`t think anything out there suggests I am missing that part. My point was that even in such a case those units are still hardly used. Which contradicts the reason given to me for some other units not being created(i.e. their limited use in the existing game was not worth the trouble for the artist).

PzC was never meant to be 100% historical accuracy.

You`re not telling me anything new there or for that matter unpleasant. Games can`t be 100% historical anyway you put it and imo they`re not much worth playing if they don`t allow for "ahistorical" action. Otherwise I wouldn`t have bothered with the entire PG series and PzC too.

The game is to be played by different kind of people.

Understandable. It`s something I`ve always been aware of and I`m hoping that you can see others` perspective too. I`m actually for a broad satisfaction of as many people as possible with this game. Which ideally means everyone should make some compromise because, naturally, the developing manpower isn`t there to satisfy everyone. On my part, as you can read above, I`ve never miliated for a complete historical roster for the so called "minor" factions, but just for more attention given to them. I`ve used the "basic sketch" term above. That implies for example a fighter, a bomber and a couple of tanks to feel that those nations are real armies too.

And some, believe it or not, do like those alternative and prototype units. As the game it's now it's possible to be played by both type of players.

Now, why would I not believe that? For that matter, where have I said I`m for taking those out? I`m one of the people who`d like to see as many options as possible. The Maus is one of them for example. I`m quite happy that it`s in. I`d be happier still if Hungary for example would have the Turan and Romania the I.A.R 80. Not all their sub-types and prototypes, but the main base. Because, you see, my point was not that the Maus should be dropped for the Turan, but that the official line given(quoted above) is not consistent with the reality. Which is that even units that are only used once in game are a great addition to the gameplay. Like the Maus is. So I think(from an outside of development perspective obviously) that a few(underlined) more units should be given to some other factions that currently are rather bare. Not immediately, not with priority, but eventually.

Everybody has his personal agenda and his own reasons, for which units and which scenarios should be included with the original PzC. Of course they could have added all WW2 units. But that's unrealistic has you might understand.

I obviously do. That`s why you can find above this part in my post:

Mark50 wrote: I know I shouldn`t expect wall to wall cover of the event and I`ve never hoped to see complete (and completely historical) unit rosters for Hungary, Romania, Holland etc., but I was hopping to see at least a basic sketch of their most important/representative equipment even if some types would be skipped or substituted with more common types.

Now, aren`t we on the same line on this issue?

Btw, if you think this has gone off topic feel free to split the thread from my first reply so as not to clutter uho`s thread.

I too would like to see more small nations units.
But I'm positive that modders, will compensate this lack.
It's just a question of time.

Uhu wrote: Be not so strict: even more units are in PC as were in PG and these have even more special abilities.

Yes, but it has less than in PG2. And I`m not actually strict. I`ve made it abundantly clear above that I`d expect limitations. I`d have been happier when units are concerned with less than those that were present in PG2 which in its turn was not encyclopedic.

For the main campaing these units were enough. What purpose has a unit if you don't see it in the campaign? Not much, I think.

I was actually talking about units that you currently see in the campaign or that should/could be in the campaign.

Look positive: it is good that we have modders who create icons and values for units and that it is possible - many wargames are hard-coded so even if you would create extra units you have not the chance for that.[/b]

I am fully aware of how time consuming and exhausting modding can be(naturally varying depending on the complexity of the game). It`s the reason I`m so reluctant to indulge in it myself when PzC is concerned. From personal experience I know that the real fun lies with the vanilla game. Once you`ve started changing things it`s hard to stop and you sorta cease playing the game for fun. The number of campaigns for the sake of testing things starts to vastly outnumber the ones you play for play`s sake alone. That`s why a silly expression comes in: "playing for fun". A game where you know where everything is and what it does is really not as fun as it used to be off the shelf. EDIT: which incidentally is why I don`t think the people who develop the game enjoy it as much as we do.

But there is a KV-85 and IS-1 in the game now, in addition to unique KV-2 and KV-5 icons.

The reason we have the KV-5 was actually unintentional, but we made the most of it and put that KV-5 to good use in several DLC scenarios.

From an old, very old BETA thread.

uran21 wrote:I made a mistake and provided blueprint for KV-5 instead of KV-2.

viewtopic.php?t=22875&highlight=kv5

Kerensky wrote:The reason we have the KV-5 was actually unintentional, but we made the most of it and put that KV-5 to good use in several DLC scenarios.

From an old, very old BETA thread.

uran21 wrote:I made a mistake and provided blueprint for KV-5 instead of KV-2.

viewtopic.php?t=22875&highlight=kv5

lol
That was an interesting development story to read. Couldn`t you have mistakenly made a Panzer 35(t) too?

Believe it not, I wasn't part of the development team when that post was made.

It did appear that way, but I couldn`t be sure. So basically when you get to be part of the team you get to choose a unit you`d like included? The KV-85 was included with the latest patch iirc. Anyway, one has to wonder what those gfx chaps are so busy with to stop making more models. Hopefully you haven`t switched them to coding.

Mark50 wrote:It did appear that way, but I couldn`t be sure. So basically when you get to be part of the team you get to choose a unit you`d like included? The KV-85 was included with the latest patch iirc. Anyway, one has to wonder what those gfx chaps are so busy with to stop making more models. Hopefully you haven`t switched them to coding.

So what you're saying is to get any 1 (one, as in singular) unit added to the official game, all you have to do is:

Create thousands of constructive forum posts.
Become accepted as a part of the dev team.
Write essays on the importance of why X unit is necessary to add to the game.
Produce content and provide work equal to or exceeding 40 hours a week.

I dunno about you, but the KV-85 was worth it.


As for what everyone is busy doing, I can't say.

lordzimoa wrote:We have a working schedule well into 2013 in place for Panzer Corps.

We will and cannot go into details, but behind the scenes there is a lot more going on and coming, besides the DLC `s that is. When, how, what... no comments at this point, just that we are working and planned way ahead already.

You will just have to wait, have faith and be patient.

But support and continuous development are guaranteed for at least the next 18-24 months.


Cheers,

Tim aka LZ

Mark50 wrote:Anyway, one has to wonder what those gfx chaps are so busy with to stop making more models. Hopefully you haven`t switched them to coding.

Can't say. But The Lordz is working in other projects besides Panzer Corps.
I think that Rudankort, Kerensky and uran21 are the permanent Panzer Corps team.