Slitherine

The last time I played the GC I kept a notepad file of ideas that occurred to me along the way - both things that would enhance the player experience, or tweak slightly to make units or game mechanics more realistic without upsetting the balance of the game. The openness of developers to refining the game that I saw during the Afrika Korps beta made me realize it might be welcomed. Some of the suggestions may have come up in the past and been shot down; I'm not sure. I love the game, but these seemed like small and unobtrusive changes that would refine the game experience without being controversial or upsetting other parameters.

1. "Ghosting" for spotted units, (akin to minefields): When an immobile fortress, strongpoint, etc. is encountered, it appears on the maps like minefields do. I’d also like to see spotted ground units appear “ghosted” on the map for one turn. As if a unit gave a field report to HQ, and you can assume they are there for a short period. Sometimes I feel I need a notepad to write down these things so I can play around them the next turn, which can be solved so easily with some map tweaking.

2. Jungle hexes supply 1/2, as desert: It didn’t feel right being able to fully supply units in the jungle in India. Jungle supply is even more taxing than desert. Especially if there is ever a Pacific branch, might as well settle that now.

3. Desert Road supply full: A unit on a desert road should resupply fully – just like on a road in Russia or elsewhere.

4. Unit waypoints, or more intelligent tactical travel routes: If a unit is moving into unknown territory, it “intelligently” choose the path to the destination hex keeping it away from towns or known fortifications, which might contain enemy units. Right now, the game seems to always default to dragging your unit towards a town, then moving to an adjacent clear hex (probably because of a defauly AI routing along roads despite equal movement cost in clear terrain). This isn’t how a real unit would move. You can over come it with recon, but that wastes resources that may be scarce or non-existent. Another way to accomplish this is if you could set one intermediate waypoint the unit passes through on the way to it’s final objective, though that might overly complicate unit movement UI mechanics.

5. Ammo state not visible to enemy. In reality, one doesn’t really know this with certainty, and it gives an unfair advantage. Both to you and to the AI.

6. New cheat that lists all cheats in effect. Sometimes you forget if you typed “reform units,” or mis-type it and there is no warning. A cheat “all cheats” would give a list of those currently in effect.

7. Transport refundable during deployment: You would be able to “upgrade” a unit down to no transport and get the prestige back. This would be invaluable for those who play “Rommel.” Also conforms to reality – the transport wouldn’t just disappear.

8. Units resupplied (but not reinforced) during train transport: It takes three turns to rail-ship a unit, two of which it spends partially idle in a logistics center (rail-connected city hex). It’s illogical the ammo load-out and fuel wouldn’t be topped off in that time.

9. 50/50 elite/green replacement option, or similar mechanic: Under the “Elite Replacement” UI button, you’d have an a) option for 50/50 green/elite at half price/half experience cost, or b) 100% elite at full cost. Again, very useful for those who play Rommel, but I bet for others early on in a prestige bind.

10. Kills awarded for surrendered units. Would help balance heroes and experience rate in major defensive scenarios, like in later Russian scenarios. And historically, capturing a unit was considered more prestigious than decimating it to render it combat ineffective.

11. Artillery should be able to capture hexes. I think this is a relic from PG? It just doesn’t make much sense given that an artillery unit possess security elements and weapons, as well as honking-big guns. It just feels wrong. This is not a big deal to experienced players, but I think would help beginning players as well as be more authentic.

12. Russian capture tanks listed with other captures in UI: For some reason in the UI, the Russian capture tanks are behind the SE tank units, instead of alphabetically behind the other captures preceding the SE units. Kind of weird, and a bit confusing sometimes when scanning reserves.

13. '43 Pioniere units before SE: Like #12, After the ’43 upgrade, Pioniere units now appear last, following SE units.

14. OKW technical bulletins (upcoming equipment): A bulletin along with new equipment notices that says things like “In two months a new heavy tank is expected to be available.” Or, “A new model Focke-Wulf fighter should be available in mid-1942.” Only for significant pieces of equipment, and to help the player judge whether to hold off on purchasing something, or to save prestige for planned changes.

15. Correct weather state/forecast in deployment phase: It is bizarre to look at a sunny forecast in the winter. Deployment period would have access to forecasts, too. Experienced players know this, but in the beginning it throws new players off.

16. Campaign branch point warnings: in a scenario leading to a branch, a briefing special note would warn you so you could save your game on the last turn, instead of coming back later and having to re-fight the scenario fully. Or for those who don’t have the campaign tree, and aren’t saving every game, have to start from scratch.

17. Mosquito spotting range of two: I don't mean to be petty about unit characteristics, but this is weird to me. Already a tough opponent, this would make it more so. And just to be consistent with Bf110, and the mosquito’s two-man crew and historical use as recon. Just seems wrong it spots one.

Excellent post. Any or all of these would be excellent additions to the game play.

That's a pretty impressive list, nice work. I am missing a couple of things in there which annoy me sometimes:

Reinforcements are now all or nothing, make it one step at a time, please. I'd really like to be able to reinforce units with one strength point at a time, and I've seen other people request this already, so I am not the only one. I think this is especially grating when you consider that most naval units can only be reinforced in these small steps. This would also give you your mixing 50/50 experienced/green function if a unit is below 10 strenght points.

A very small issue I've had is the fact that I cannot move an anti-aircraft unit underneath an enemy air unit before opening fire if it's already within range. This may seem very minor but I already encountered a couple of instances where it would have been very desirable. For example when you need to move to get in range to shoot at an aircraft but can only do so if you move to a hex occupied by another airplane which is already in range. In that case, you can only shoot at the aircraft which was already in range (which you don't want), or try to make room elsewhere to move it to, which is often simply not possible, or 'remove' the offending aircraft by attacking it with other units. Which is exactly the opposite of the reason I bought the thing for in the first place. Very annoying especially because it further diminishes their already limited use as a core unit.

Your idea about the refundable transport is very nice, but I was thinking, since air/rail/sea transport is already pooled seperately from the units, why not pool the trucks/halftracks seperately as well? This way a unit could leave it's transport behind in a city during a scenario, with it still being available. The biggest problem I see with this it that, using the current system for pooled transport, a unit can turn in it's transport and it can be instantly added to another unit on the other side of the map, so that would be a big exploit.
So maybe 'lock' a unit to a particular transport or something. What could also work is to treat all these unassigned transport units as seperate units on the map, and you have to move them on a unit to be able to mount it. This way you couldn't just move your paratroopers on a recently conquered airfield far behind the frontline and fly off again, you would have to keep the empty transport around or escort it to their location. Would give the logistical side a whole new dimension.

As I am read through your proposals, some questions popped up about proposal no. 5, the visibility ofthe ammo state. Just throwing out some comments:

First of, wouldn't this be of advantage to the AI, because it could easily keep track of the ammo/fuel state of a unit as long as it remains in sight? Humans would have trouble with that, except Rain Man of course. Would still be nice for multiplayer, so maybe make it a switchable feature?

Would you also like to see this extended to the fuel status? This would be logical if you favour not showing the ammo. The same thing, although not convincingly, could also be said for the entrenchment level or even the exact combat characteristics of a unit (experience level, too). I think all this would bring a lot of luck into the game, instead of rewarding skill.

As far as I am aware, the focus on this first patch following the release of AK is primarily dedicated to fixing a few of the more serious issues that have cropped up since that release. I don't honestly know if there is time to implement new game play features and improvements at this time, but I do know this won't be the last Panzer Corps patch and perhaps in the future we can add in even more features.

I myself have a few requests too.

The idea of hiding ammo states is a very interesting suggestion. The AI doesn't care about fuel/ammo (unless a unit if out of ammo), but supply is extremely important for MP. I'd go further and say, in a dedicated MP expansion, there could be a feature for a more "wargame-y" fog-of-war, so you only know roughly what type of unit is present (an infantry, a Panzer IV, etc.), but not strength, experience, or fuel/ammo. The more units you have in range to spot, the better your information, and you gain more information after combat especially or with recon units. Could prove very interesting.

I like that idea a lot. Recon would be more useful if they gained more info rather than needing a greater spotting distance.

Kamerer wrote:11. Artillery should be able to capture hexes. I think this is a relic from PG? It just doesn’t make much sense given that an artillery unit possess security elements and weapons, as well as honking-big guns. It just feels wrong. This is not a big deal to experienced players, but I think would help beginning players as well as be more authentic.

I agree and think it is not explicit written but meant that AA also should have the ability to capture cities. In fact every ground-unit should be able to capture a city.
But what about naval units? Should naval units be able to capture ports? Is it realistic that a destroyer capture a seaport? I don't know, there could be arguments for both sides. Maybe a possibility to avoid these questions is to prohibit naval units to enter enemy ports.

zappel wrote:But what about naval units? Should naval units be able to capture ports? Is it realistic that a destroyer capture a seaport? I don't know, there could be arguments for both sides. Maybe a possibility to avoid these questions is to prohibit naval units to enter enemy ports.

Interesting point. This comes with the additional problem that there are different types of ships, and although large vessels would have a boarding party (Marines) for shore duties, I don't see that working with submarines and small patrol boats, you would need different 'classes' of ships to make it work properly.

The only thing I can think of right now would be that when a naval unit enters a port, the port flag turns neutral, until it leaves again. That could work for all kinds of ships without getting ridiculous. Although I'm in favor that if naval units are allowed to enter hostile ports, as soon as they are in port they should have a penalty to their defense values, as they would be very vulnerable without room to maneuver.

If Panzer Corps ever expands into the Pacific, these sort of questions become very important.

All good ideas.

I hope that at least some of them will be incorporated.

I particularly like the OP's 'Ghosting' idea, waypoints and staged reinforcement.

Balla.

It is an example of very useful feedback, the more such feedback we can get the better. I've given this list some thought while working on 1.13, so I thought I'd post some comments.

Kamerer wrote: 1. "Ghosting" for spotted units, (akin to minefields): When an immobile fortress, strongpoint, etc. is encountered, it appears on the maps like minefields do. I’d also like to see spotted ground units appear “ghosted” on the map for one turn. As if a unit gave a field report to HQ, and you can assume they are there for a short period. Sometimes I feel I need a notepad to write down these things so I can play around them the next turn, which can be solved so easily with some map tweaking.

In general, I agree. There are many refinements which would be useful in spotting. For example, a unit retreating into darkness should remain visible, because we know it is there. Same goes to artillery giving support fire from fog of war. I'm not sure about "ghosted" units, but might be worth it too.

Kamerer wrote: 2. Jungle hexes supply 1/2, as desert: It didn’t feel right being able to fully supply units in the jungle in India. Jungle supply is even more taxing than desert. Especially if there is ever a Pacific branch, might as well settle that now.
3. Desert Road supply full: A unit on a desert road should resupply fully – just like on a road in Russia or elsewhere.

The point of existing system is not to be realistic (in fact it is not - supply problems were typical to Africa theatre in general, not to places with a particular terrain type), but to give Africa some flavour. From this point of view such changes, while certainly "logical", will not change much. The flavour is already there, realism is questionable anyway, and I doubt this will have big impact on gameplay.

BTW, speaking about jungle, I think it is similar to forest: if the units can move there, then they can get supply too. If it were just dense jungle with no roads, no movement (except on foot) would be possible there.

Kamerer wrote: 4. Unit waypoints, or more intelligent tactical travel routes: If a unit is moving into unknown territory, it “intelligently” choose the path to the destination hex keeping it away from towns or known fortifications, which might contain enemy units. Right now, the game seems to always default to dragging your unit towards a town, then moving to an adjacent clear hex (probably because of a defauly AI routing along roads despite equal movement cost in clear terrain). This isn’t how a real unit would move. You can over come it with recon, but that wastes resources that may be scarce or non-existent. Another way to accomplish this is if you could set one intermediate waypoint the unit passes through on the way to it’s final objective, though that might overly complicate unit movement UI mechanics.

I think that waypoints are an unnecessary complication, but a better routing algorithm could help. The game uses the shortest path now, but there are usually several equivalent paths, and the game does not attempt to choose the best one using certain criteria. My concern though is this: no matter what algorithm we choose, there will be people unhappy with it.

Kamerer wrote: 9. 50/50 elite/green replacement option, or similar mechanic: Under the “Elite Replacement” UI button, you’d have an a) option for 50/50 green/elite at half price/half experience cost, or b) 100% elite at full cost. Again, very useful for those who play Rommel, but I bet for others early on in a prestige bind.

Yes, this would allow you to use resources more effectively. But do we really need this? The difficulty of the game is balanced within the existing rule set. Rommel is difficult because you don't have enough resources. Perhaps if you could plan resource spending more carefully, this level would not be that difficult any more, and we would need to further reduce prestige on Rommel.

My point is: more advanced replacements rules are not "better", they are just different and require different game balance. But in my opinion, existing rules have an advantage of simplicity.

Kamerer wrote: 5. Ammo state not visible to enemy. In reality, one doesn’t really know this with certainty, and it gives an unfair advantage. Both to you and to the AI.

This is very interesting but controversial point. It certainly requires a lot of thinking, and not something for this game, but might be an idea for the future. My main concern is that this feature would dramatically increase micromanagement work, both for the player and the AI. In many cases the player knows enough to deduce ammo count of each enemy unit. After all, units spend ammo only when fighting, and by definition the player sees all battles which take place. Ammo count can be lost only if a unit retreats to darkness and there it does not take replacements (which can be detected and gives a known ammo boost), but does resupply. This is very unlikely behavior, especially for the AI which, afair, does not retreat to resupply. So, in most cases the player will know ammo count anyway. But he would need to remember or put down a lot of information for every enemy unit to keep track of its ammo. He will never see accurate combat predictions which take "no ammo" condition into account. He will need to know the formulas and calculate manually how much ammo is reduced after carpet bombing with a strategic bomber. Why place all this burden on the player?

The AI would need to do the same. It could take unit ammo from game data but this would be cheating, because in some cases he cannot know the exact amount. So it would need to do all the same "record keeping work" too. A huge complication of the AI with no real gain for gameplay (essentially it will play as it does now).

Kamerer wrote: 6. New cheat that lists all cheats in effect. Sometimes you forget if you typed “reform units,” or mis-type it and there is no warning. A cheat “all cheats” would give a list of those currently in effect.

I agree. Most likely the cheat system will see some rework in future updates.

Kamerer wrote: 7. Transport refundable during deployment: You would be able to “upgrade” a unit down to no transport and get the prestige back. This would be invaluable for those who play “Rommel.” Also conforms to reality – the transport wouldn’t just disappear.

I tend to agree with this, and even more: I think that during the battle transports should be discardable (they already are when you load on an air transport), and if you do discard the transport, you can later assign it to a unit for free.

Kamerer wrote: 8. Units resupplied (but not reinforced) during train transport: It takes three turns to rail-ship a unit, two of which it spends partially idle in a logistics center (rail-connected city hex). It’s illogical the ammo load-out and fuel wouldn’t be topped off in that time.

I agree with the general premise of this suggestion, but I think that it should be handled differently: train transportation should not take this long. In particular, it might make sense to automatically unload a unit from train in the beginning of its turn if its previous turn has ended in a city. So on the next turn the unit can load to train again and continue moving (if it wants), or it can already move and attack normally.

Kamerer wrote: 10. Kills awarded for surrendered units. Would help balance heroes and experience rate in major defensive scenarios, like in later Russian scenarios. And historically, capturing a unit was considered more prestigious than decimating it to render it combat ineffective.

In my opinion, hero earning rate is perhaps too high already, so I don't see a reason to further increase it. I would decrease it instead.

Kamerer wrote: 11. Artillery should be able to capture hexes. I think this is a relic from PG? It just doesn’t make much sense given that an artillery unit possess security elements and weapons, as well as honking-big guns. It just feels wrong. This is not a big deal to experienced players, but I think would help beginning players as well as be more authentic.

I think that both approaches have their advantages. "PG style rules" make the game actually richer. Thus, you have a choice to bypass enemy units which cannot take flags back, instead of decimating them, and this can certainly make difference in some scens. This game is all about unit classes, their roles and coordination. From this point of view, removing any difference between classes is not a good idea.

But I can see how existing system can be a bit confusing, even though we do explain it in tutorial.

I'll consider this point again for future games. But in PzC I intend to preserve status quo.

Kamerer wrote: 12. Russian capture tanks listed with other captures in UI: For some reason in the UI, the Russian capture tanks are behind the SE tank units, instead of alphabetically behind the other captures preceding the SE units. Kind of weird, and a bit confusing sometimes when scanning reserves.

13. '43 Pioniere units before SE: Like #12, After the ’43 upgrade, Pioniere units now appear last, following SE units.

I think, this should be fixed in 1.13. Let me know if it's not.

Kamerer wrote: 14. OKW technical bulletins (upcoming equipment): A bulletin along with new equipment notices that says things like “In two months a new heavy tank is expected to be available.” Or, “A new model Focke-Wulf fighter should be available in mid-1942.” Only for significant pieces of equipment, and to help the player judge whether to hold off on purchasing something, or to save prestige for planned changes.

This is a good idea. Actually I'm thinking about allowing the player to spend prestige in order to speed up development of certain key units, and for that, they should certainly be listed too. But this is a major change, so probably not for this game.

Kamerer wrote: 15. Correct weather state/forecast in deployment phase: It is bizarre to look at a sunny forecast in the winter. Deployment period would have access to forecasts, too. Experienced players know this, but in the beginning it throws new players off.

In 1.13 deployment state shows pre-scenario ground state (which is specified in the editor for each scenario). But actual weather for the upcoming battle is not yet known until the battle actually begins.

Kamerer wrote: 16. Campaign branch point warnings: in a scenario leading to a branch, a briefing special note would warn you so you could save your game on the last turn, instead of coming back later and having to re-fight the scenario fully. Or for those who don’t have the campaign tree, and aren’t saving every game, have to start from scratch.

Specific implementation can vary, but I agree in general.

Kamerer wrote: 17. Mosquito spotting range of two: I don't mean to be petty about unit characteristics, but this is weird to me. Already a tough opponent, this would make it more so. And just to be consistent with Bf110, and the mosquito’s two-man crew and historical use as recon. Just seems wrong it spots one.

A general rule we've used is that tactical bombers have a spotting of one. Exceptions were made when we felt they were needed for gameplay reasons. Thus, Bf110 was changed to increase its usefulness in the core. When we get to allied campaigns we may similarly rethink Mosquito stats.

Rudankort wrote:

Kamerer wrote: 11. Artillery should be able to capture hexes. I think this is a relic from PG? It just doesn’t make much sense given that an artillery unit possess security elements and weapons, as well as honking-big guns. It just feels wrong. This is not a big deal to experienced players, but I think would help beginning players as well as be more authentic.

I think that both approaches have their advantages. "PG style rules" make the game actually richer. Thus, you have a choice to bypass enemy units which cannot take flags back, instead of decimating them, and this can certainly make difference in some scens. This game is all about unit classes, their roles and coordination. From this point of view, removing any difference between classes is not a good idea.

But I can see how existing system can be a bit confusing, even though we do explain it in tutorial.

I'll consider this point again for future games. But in PzC I intend to preserve status quo.

For me it is not only confusing, in some cases it is very strange. Think about units that can switch combat mode! The 8,8cm FlaK 36 can capture cities in AT-mode but not in AA-mode. StuG IV can capture cities in AT-mode but not in ART-mode. And allied units like M4 Sherman (105) or SU-122/SU-152/... have the same behaviour: capture cities in one mode and no ability to capture cities in the other mode. It is the same unit in both constellations but only in one mode a city can be captured. That ic confusing indeed. I suggest to change this functionality and make it available as an option in game-menu or game-ruleset. But I also believe if this option would be available everybody would use it, so it could be implemented in game for all.

IdeaError: Enable AirZOC per default

zappel wrote:For me it is not only confusing, in some cases it is very strange. Think about units that can switch combat mode!

Good point.

Jelinobas wrote:IdeaError: Enable AirZOC per default

How would this benefit the gameplay?

Rudankort wrote:

Jelinobas wrote:IdeaError: Enable AirZOC per default

How would this benefit the gameplay?

Without it is impossible to block KI Planes. And KI flies through Player's Plane as well they were not exist.

Jelinobas wrote:Without it is impossible to block KI Planes. And KI flies through Player's Plane as well they were not exist.

Right. It is easy enough to swarm and kill AI's planes already, with this feature it will be even easier to trap them and finish off, thus gaining air superiority. Why would we want to make player's task even easier?

Why? It would be fair and logical in comparison to the ZOC at sea and land.

And AI in the game is another matter.
The AI has no memory, they do not know what the previous round of units and still had city or airfields, they do not know that the player has shot up in her lap just 10 units.
The AI is ... yes what?
With Players Air Force out of sight from the AI, the AI switch all Flak in AT mode. Players aircraft destroyed the "bottom FlaK" without damage. It makes the game against AI also very very easy.
(Thx Google Translator)

Jelinobas wrote:Why? It would be fair and logical in comparison to the ZOC at sea and land.

While i am not exactly really strongly against have an air ZoC i do not think you can just say having land ZoC logically leads to having an air ZoC.

The air combat and is totally different to ground combat . In the air you work with three dimensions while on the ground you are limited to two (discounting the terrain high differences here). This automatically leads to having a lot more space in the air to maneuver so controlling it is a lot more difficult. Air combat is a lot more mobile as well. Planes keep moving all the time while fighting. Ground combat is a lot more static. Units involved tend to seek more cover and usually don't shot on the move (ok nowadays tanks can aim while driving at full speed but it wasn't the case in WW 2).

This all leads to the fact that executing a ground ZoC is a lot easier then air ZoC. If the air ZoC is needed for game balance then sure why not but trying to argument with "having land ZoC logically suggests having air ZoC" seems very wrong to me.

Tarrak wrote:The air combat and is totally different to ground combat . In the air you work with three dimensions while on the ground you are limited to two (discounting the terrain high differences here). This automatically leads to having a lot more space in the air to maneuver so controlling it is a lot more difficult. Air combat is a lot more mobile as well. Planes keep moving all the time while fighting. Ground combat is a lot more static. Units involved tend to seek more cover and usually don't shot on the move (ok nowadays tanks can aim while driving at full speed but it wasn't the case in WW 2).

If PC was an Flightsimulator, i agree with you. But PC is this not.

Since this topic is still alive and well, and considering the recent improvements and added features for the upcoming patch, I've become curious. I've seen mentioned in a different thread that a 'pooled' system for attached transports (trucks, halftracks) was being contemplated, which was on my earlier 'wish-list'. Rudankort made an interesting comment (see: viewtopic.php?f=121&t=40883#p384043)

Rudankort wrote:By this I mean that discarded transport would get to a pool of available equipment, and then you would be able to "upgrade" a unit to use this transport again for free. But picking up random units on the field with Opel trucks is unlikely to happen. There are many scenarios where towed guns are supposed to remain where they are, not get transported to a different place en masse.

I'm just spouting ideas/questions here, because I find the concept very interesting. Being able to detach a transport from a unit and adding it to a pool of similar units, would that be like the current system for air/sea/rail transports? Would this type of pool-system cause units on the other side of the map to suddenly be equipped with transports, or are the transports 'locked' somehow, so they can only be re-attached to the same unit? Still, a mountain infantry could than discard their trucks, walk across a mountain, and attach their previous transports in the next town. Something which I don't mind, as it would take a couple of turns, but it might unbalance some scenarios (like Norway perhaps).

Or would the discarding/attaching of transports only occur during the deployment fase, with the possible option of discarding the transport during the scenario, but than it would only be available to attach again during the next deployment fase?

I thought about having the transport units literally being detached from their unit and being able to be driven/flown across the map seperately. Playing the Western GC missions where you have to escort the 'empty' transports across the map was very interesting, and it might work reasonably well to 'pick up' units to transport on the map, but it would cause a lot of complications. Although I would like to see such a system for the air/sea/rail transport units, which are few in number and make for an interesting logistical challenge, esp. ferrying transport planes back to safety after they've dropped their cargo.

The current system is quite nice, it's just that I find it a bit strange that paratroopers can just walk onto an airfield deep in enemy territory and be flown out with a tranport plane which has max. fuel and didn't need to dodge fighters/AAA to get there. Or just hop in a train/ship behind enemy lines. I did this a couple of times during multiplayer and it feels like an exploit, esp. when the weather is bad so the transports cannot be intercepted, although they can drop their paratroopers in bad weather, which they shouldn't be able to do I think.

Another time I quickly loaded a unit in a train and went on a city-conquering spree, with a train that is twice as fast(!) as the pursuing fighter-bombers, my opponent had a full core so could not buy a ground unit to stop me quickly in my tracks, which took him several turns. Very frustrating experience, as I understood it. If transports were separate units on the map, this sort of thing would be very difficult to do, and managing these extra transports would not be very bothersome I think, some players might even find it very interesting.


Oh, and about the ZoC for planes, it's just my opinion but I think a ZoC for air wouldn't work very well under the current system. I'm trying to think what the practical consequences would be. Say, if a bomber is escorted by fighters, they could all be 'bounced' by a single enemy fighter, who could be strength one and out of ammo, but it would still take several powerful air units out of the fight, wasting their turn and fuel.

You could abuse that system to set up 'Flak traps'. The problem here is that sort of system would be very 'digital', you would either get bounced or not, and that could cause problematic situations when the units involved are very unevenly matched; it would heavily favour the defender. That sort of penalties might be a bit harsh. And during bad weather, with no spotting, such intercepts could not happen of course.

If you want to make air warfare more interesting, maybe make it a bit more '3D'. Ideas/inspiration: Currently there are bonuses/penalties for high-flying and low-flying air units when attacking (-5 to ground defense for the latter). But what if a player could choose (switch) between high or low? A bit hard perhaps to represent in the UI, it could get too messy or busy-looking, but not very problematic either I think.

Random ideas as explanation: Let's say a unit starts of at 'low' (normal PzC) altitude after refuelling. Switching to flying high would, for example, cause a unit to be unable to attack ground units, apart from the level bombers. Fighters would have a (INI?) penalty against higher-flying opponents, and/or have bonuses against lower-flying opponents, etc.. Under such rules, a ZoC for air units at the same altitude could work without crippling the system, although it would add quite a bit of complexity to the system, considering it already functions quite well.

I play with AirZOC 1 since the Game was released in german Box Version. The Funktion is also built in the Game Engine long ago. And it works like i wished. The thing is only, there is no documention of this function, there is only a didden "switch" in the "gamerules.pzdat" file. Let it be so and evryone can make is own chose of ZOC or not. No Problem.

# This file configures a number of options used by Panzer Corps game engine.

FormatVersion 1

# *** Zone of Control (ZOC) rules
# The following three options specify if the three main branches of units (ground, air or naval) are effected by ZOC created by enemy units. 1=yes, 0=no.
GroundZOC 1
NavalZOC 1
AirZOC 0
# This parameter specifies if move and attack must be used together (0), or can be used independently (1). In the latter case the unit can be selected two times in the course of a turn.
IndependentMoveAttack 1
# *** Initiative rules
# The following parameter specifies how many shots a unit puts in before the opponent can shoot back, in percent from all shots a unit does in combat, for each point of initiative advantage.
ShotsPerInitiativePoint 20
# The following parameter specifies how much initiative a unit loses when surrounded by more than 1 enemy units (initiative points per enemy unit, except actual attacker).
MassAttackInitiativePenalty 1
# The following parameter specifies how much initiative a unit loses when it has no fuel.
NoFuelInitiativePenalty 2
# *** Experience rules
# The following parameters specify experience bonus to initiative, attack and defense. There are two types of bonuses: absolute and relative (in percent of base stat). When both bonuses are non-zero, the game uses the minimum of the two.
InitiativeExpBonusAbs 1
InitiativeExpBonusRel 10
AttackExpBonusAbs 1
AttackExpBonusRel 10
DefenseExpBonusAbs 1
DefenseExpBonusRel 10
# Upgrade penalty. When a unit is upgraded within the same series of equipment (e. g. between two PzIII or Bf109 modifications), its experience does not change. But if the unit is upgraded between two different series (e. g. from Bg109 to FW190), it loses some experience in the process, specified by this parameter.
UpgradeExpPenalty 0
# Experience of green replacements, in percent of experience of the unit being replaced.
GreenReplacementsExp 30
# *** Prestige
# Default bonuses for capturing an ordinary flag and a victory hex.
FlagCaptureBonus 50
VHCaptureBonus 100
# The following 4 parameters specify replacement costs in percent of a new unit cost. The first two parameters are used during a scenario (for normal and elite replacements respectively). Second two parameters are used between scenarios in a campaign.
ScnReplaceCost 25
ScnEReplaceCost 100
CamReplaceCost 0
CamEReplaceCost 50
# Overstrength cost, in percent of ordinary elite replacements cost
OverstrengthCost 200
# Upgrade cost, in percent of new unit cost
UpgradeCost 100
LowAltitudeAttackPenalty -5
ExpGrowRate0 100
ExpGrowRate1 50
ExpGrowRate2 25
ExpGrowRate3 12
ExpGrowRate4 6
ExpGrowRate5 3
ParadropSuppression 50
Hero1KillsMin 50
Hero1KillsMax 100
Hero2KillsMin 101
Hero2KillsMax 200
Hero3KillsMin 201
Hero3KillsMax 500