Slitherine

Is a Pacific Corps going to be the next part? Please, say yesssssss

There was a Pacific General released, so you never know. At this stage you could download bebro's IJA campaign mod.
An offical campaign would need many parts of the engine re-written though, so I don't know how keen the developers would be about this.

- BNC

Looks here to a Pazifik Korps mod

http://www.designmodproject.de/index.php

BiteNibbleChomp wrote:An offical campaign would need many parts of the engine re-written though, so I don't know how keen the developers would be about this.

At least, those rule changes would have to be evaluated.

I mean, much like Panzer Corps improves upon Panzer General, a Pacific Corps game would aspire to improve upon Pacific General; and it is far from a given that any single rule-change introduced by Pacific General really was a good idea. (We all know how much of a good idea Star General was, i.e. none at all). Some Pacific General rules are already part of subsequent games including PC!

Do you think Night Turns was a good idea, that is, did it significantly improve the game? More specifically, what features regarding Night Turns would you like to see in a Pacific Corps game?

• Twice the fuel consumption
• Half spotting range
• Maximum 2 firing range (with optics and radar to negate this for naval night combat)
• No tactical bombing during night
• No air combat during night (much like rain and sandstorm. Radar negates)
• Night landings on aircraft carrier very risky
• Night ground combat shares similarities with close terrain combat: Initiative negated and experience added to both ground defense and direct attacks (with optics and radar again to negate)

A rule much like Pacific General's Massed Attack special rule is already part of PC.
AA in PC already provide cover for adjacent units ("ADA Support").
Certain units in PC are already much better at taking strongpoints ("Bunker Killer")

No equivalent to the Banzai rule (giving weak Japanese infantry a chance to suicide itself much like Soviet conscripts attacking Tiger IIs ). Guide is a variant of Gebirgsjäger for tropical conditions. PC does not have a "ranger" trait to negate rugged defense, a "fearless" trait to never retreat, or a "guard" trait to make the enemy retreat AFAIK. I do believe a "kamikaze"-like trait is available for V2 rockets.

More interestingly, the important realization with a game set in the Pacific must be to focus on the air vs naval cat and mouse game. The naval combat of Panzer General/Corps might be primitive, but the solution isn't to try to improve it. Let battleship duels remain primitive slugfests, I say! (Unlike the doomed Star General, this aspect of the game should remain peripheral, after all)

Instead, the solution is to add a layer of managing fighter wings: do they land on carriers or provide CAP? What armaments do they carry? You would want to see carriers implemented in such a way that fighter units need to land in order to rearm or supply, and limit a carrier's capacity to launch and land units. Obviously fighters on deck should not partake in aerial combat, possibly leaving the carrier nearly defenseless. (This latter part is how a carrier normally works in Panzer Corps - it would be good if you could tell a fighter unit to go on CAP patrol, meaning that it protects the carrier much like a fighter protects a bomber in today's game, without having to micromanage its movement when you move the carrier)

Found something.

spartan18a wrote:Is a Pacific Corps going to be the next part? Please, say yesssssss

I believe the answer is:
http://www.slitherine.com/games/order_of_battle_pacific

(There will, it seems, be a pacific game, but as a completely separate product, and not an add-on to Panzer Corps)

i would really prefer a Pac Corps using the PzCorp game engine - with slight tweaking of rules to reflect carrier operations, etc.
It gives a completion feel to the pkg.

As far as i am greatly anticipating the launch of Order of Battle, we are not yet sure about the game play...

but for sure, i will purchase when it comes out.

The next project will be Soviet Corps. We need to decide what happens next after that, but that will be decided later this year.

After Soviet Corps, a Pacific Corps seems the logical next step, but for that some important gameplay, scenario editor and engine updates would be needed, so it is on our list for the future, a final decision will be made after Soviet Corps is finished.

Wish that Pacific Corps was made instead Soviet Corps. I remember playing Pac Gen way back and it was the best. Always wished there was another game like it.

Idea to devs:

If you want to keep the engine the same (without changing anything!), you may want to consider making campaigns like "Free Forces Corps":
You start in Poland playing as the Poles. Warsaw is captured, and the briefings tell you that you have escaped to London. Later on, you join the French in 1940, and later even more countries join (Greece etc.). Eventually, you have a core made up of "defeated" nations, and you have special missions within major campaigns like Italy.

Another Possibility is "Fliegierkorps"
In this, you start as a German Para Division in Norway, and throughout the campaign, you get planes and possibly ground forces (depends on how much these would upset the idea). Missions are stuff like "Neutralise 80% of London (needing Strategic Bombers) or destroy 13 Soviet Units in the Minsk Pocket (Paras and Tac Bombers, Fighters to protect your bombers)

- BNC

Orders of Battle Pacific looks like it's going to be an absolutely outstanding game, can't wait - day one purchase.

Well perhaps after WW2 we can head into well.... Distant times (Korean War/and Asian War where we fight in China and Siberia?)

My main issue with a game such as People's General was the (sometimes vastly) increased offensive capabilities of even average units. This meant that each turn the AI singled out one or two of my units and destroyed them.

Since the fun with this kind of game for me is about raising and nurturing your very own core of elite units, that meant a death blow to my enjoyment when I realized I could not protect my units: the one(s) marked for death simply died, unless you took unrealistic defensive precautions that meant not playing the game like the romp it was supposed to be.

In part this problem exists already in the last stages of WWII. Scenarios set in 1945-1946 are often brutal in this regard. But in this case it's okay - since it's supposed to be only the crescendo of a long campaign. And if you have done your job well, your units will prove the exception to the rule (five star King Tigers don't die easily )

In short: I'm not interested in post WWII warfare (or pre-WWII with its slogfest either when I think about it...) unless Slitherine solves this problem. If it can be solved, I mean (it would be easy to limit units to range 1 and artillery to range 3 just like in Panzer General but would it feel like Korea or China?)

Yeah, I agree with you mostly. While I liked People's Gen I felt the same about the units.

I esp. disliked the way air units were handled, which was supposedly more realistic: instead of individual units, spend points for air missions. IMO it may have been a nice idea, but made the air part less interesting, very generic, and without creating any kind of the "attachment" you feel for your units otherwise.

That being said, I think the Korean War would make an interesting subject for a PG/PzC style game, if only for the jets. Much of the land eqp was still similar or even the same as that of WWII, so wouldn't need to get outrageous stats... /my 2 cts of course

bebro wrote:That being said, I think the Korean War would make an interesting subject for a PG/PzC style game, if only for the jets. Much of the land eqp was still similar or even the same as that of WWII, so wouldn't need to get outrageous stats... /my 2 cts of course

Well, the main issue is artillery.

We all know that the AI's understanding of artillery and suppression in Panzer Corps is next to non-existent. However, this might just well be the key to how enjoyable the game is: had the AI used the late-war capabilities of the US or Soviet armies to their full extent, it simply would completely suppress at least one unit each turn, and there does not exist a unit that survives being attacked when all 10 strength points are suppressed: either you have left it a retreat path or it will surrender.
I understand the combat mechanisms aren't identical between the two games, but I think you'll agree with my general points anyhow.

The problem in People's General is that every army has access to self-propelled range 4+ artillery (often far greater ranges than that, including helicopters, if I remember correctly). This means that the AI doesn't have to be smart, it will still manage to suppress the unit(s) it selects for destruction.

So I think it is a very real problem. If you restrict the units (and the AI) in a way that lets the player's core survive, you get a fun game but possibly one that doesn't feel like modern(ish) warfare. If you design the units to match their historical capabilities, you get a realistic game, but one ill-suited to the core gameplay idea of Panzer General/Corps. Which is to play WWII much like a fantasy roleplaying game, one with "hero" units that you bring along from battle to battle.

Already in Panzer Corps some players call for range 4+ artillery. A "People's Corps" would just be the same issue, only cranked up to eleven.

We'll have to see what the Slith team has to say on this issue if and when it becomes relevant

The long-range artillery can be found in my WWI mod, where the standard artillery has 6. Artillery should only have a range it really needs:

Where it stands-Your trench-your wire-No mans land-Enemy wire-Enemy trench-target just behind trench for wwi - have to use 6, otherwise you can't hit the trench, or 1 behind it. in a ww2 case though, 6 range is very large and almost unbeatable - no fun.

So much still can be done with europe in ww2, so why isn't anyone asking for more of this? - say the Free Polish Forces.

- BNC