Still giving or just milking a dead cow?

[edahl1980]

Question to devs.
Is this game going to see new features or is it just making a quick $$ making new DLC's using old material..
Soviet corps - Manchuria'45 is a good example. Lets use 36 equipment with 15 strenght.
And some of us have been waiting for a very long time for a German recon plane.
Also want a soft cap calculator showing how much over the cap i am as i deploy units...

[Rudankort]

Depends on what new features we are talking about. With so much content already released, it is very difficult to change the game in most ways without the risk of ruining some of the content out there. We have tried to make some gameplay changes when Allied Corps was released, but people's reaction was not always positive, and we decided not to repeat this experiment.

Another thing to keep in mind are mods. There are many mods for Panzer Corps. The authors of some of them are not around any more. Any changes in the game, not even in gameplay/AI, but for example in UI can break some mods, and there will be nobody to provide a fix.

With all these limitations in mind, we do still consider further improvements in the game, so any specific suggestions are welcome.

[McGuba]

Hi,

First of all, thanks for making this game so easy to mod as it gave a lot of fun to many of us!

But, if we are at mods, I think it would be great to have some more support in their easier installation and accessability. As it stands now more complex mods (which change UI, unit graphics, sounds, etc.) require the use of the Generic Mod Enabler which is not very user friendly and needs some computer skills that not every player has. For example there could be a folder named MODS where mods could be copied into having the same folder structure as the base game and then could be run from there. Then the game would check if there is a file with the same name as in the base game it would use that one instead of the originial. It works in some other games I do not see why it could not work here. Moreover, the game already seems to use the same system with the desert versions of the unit icons - if there is no unit with the same name in the desert folder the game just uses the normal icon even if the theatre is set to Africa.

Another frequent request is the workshop feature which, if I am right, would mean a one click install of mods for the steam version. It has been claimed several times by Ian and others that while mods generally increase sales of the base game there is no time and budget and manpower etc. to add the workshop feature which would definitely make the mods more accessible for the masses of players. I guess the majority of players are not even aware of the existence of mods and even many of those who are just do not bother installing them. So on the one hand workshop and/or easier mod installation would supposedly increase sales, on the other hand there is no budget and/or willingness to implement it. Maybe I am wrong, but I see a contradiction here.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/268400/d ... 860552345/

[edahl1980]

Depends on what new features we are talking about. With so much content already released, it is very difficult to change the game in most ways without the risk of ruining some of the content out there. We have tried to make some gameplay changes when Allied Corps was released, but people's reaction was not always positive, and we decided not to repeat this experiment.

Another thing to keep in mind are mods. There are many mods for Panzer Corps. The authors of some of them are not around any more. Any changes in the game, not even in gameplay/AI, but for example in UI can break some mods, and there will be nobody to provide a fix.

With all these limitations in mind, we do still consider further improvements in the game, so any specific suggestions are welcome.

1. German recon plane.
2. Soft cap calculator. As much as i like the idea of a soft cap, its very hard to keep track off an average of 400 while deploying 30+ units, some of them overstrenght.

As for mods, if players no longer want a progressing game. Then they can play older versions.

[Ralle]

I don`t think the gameplay needs big changes. For me the general mechanics are fine.
But saying "We can`t make big changes anymore because they could break mods, or fans could dislike them" is an interesting but odd argument.
One could interpret that as a dev saying modders made the game unpatchable.
If you simply don`t want to make big changes anymore just say it. The game is a few years old. Nobody would be upset about this I think.

But some additional units could be great. New units in general can hardly break the game I think.
A soft cap calculator could indeed be a good thing.

[ptje63]

I would enhance the advanced options. Now you have to chose for 1.14 or 1.25 rules. I would want to chose which of these features, instead of all yes or no.
I found several mods not working according to instructions. Sometimes had to copy/paste manually files instead GME working properly.
Have played AK and GC West, now 1944 East. Spent 1,5 years olaying so far. Proper installation of other mods will give me several years of gameplay to come .
Gathering hints/suggestions for improvementon this forum and implementing it will insure fun even more. I dont think a fundamental new game / successor to PC for me is needed...

[Rudankort]

I don`t think the gameplay needs big changes. For me the general mechanics are fine.
But saying "We can`t make big changes anymore because they could break mods, or fans could dislike them" is an interesting but odd argument.
One could interpret that as a dev saying modders made the game unpatchable.
If you simply don`t want to make big changes anymore just say it. The game is a few years old. Nobody would be upset about this I think.

In some sense, the mods indeed complicate further development. But I'm not complaining, just stating this fact of life. Do you know that we maintain two completely separate and independent code bases for PC and iPad versions, and any change we make in the game, even the slightest one, must be made in two places? The reason is, PC HTML-based UI cannot work on iPad, and making a new unified cross-platform implementation would destroy all deep mods out there, and reduce modding possibilities for any future ones. Just one example how modding considerations affect our own work and decisions.

But anyway. This is not the point which I wanted to stress. Panzer Corps is indeed an "old" game by now, and such game must be treated differently to recently released ones. It's not only because of the balance in existing content, or mod support. While some people may accuse us of "milking a dead cow", many others are silently enjoying the game in its current state, and will be outraged if we change certain things they are used to. At this point, every change must be considered very carefully, and many changes will be rejected as unfeasible after this consideration. This is how things work. I thought it was important to explain this, to avoid any unrealistic expectations.

This is not about additional units though. We did add some more in Soviet Corps not long ago, and we will add more if they will be required by future content. This is also not about "convenience improvements" in user experience/UI, or new additional options, or any other things which don't affect core experience. Thus, some information on soft cap in the UI sounds like a good idea. And of course, this is not about patches, bug fixes and performance issues. We are still fully committed to supporting this game. I think, recent performance issue because of the Steam client is a good example.

To answer your last point specifically, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "big" changes. For example, implementing a new smarter AI sounds pretty big, but it is acceptable as long as it remains an option and classic AI remains the default. I would love to do this, if only I can find time. But many other "big" changes are indeed out of the question, as I've explained above.

[Ralle]

Like I said, I do enjoy the game in its current state. I mean especially the core mechanics. This doesn`t mean there`s nothing to improve of course.
You could make possible future changes optional, like you did once with the different set of rules. I do hope that you consider every change in general very carefully, not only at this point.
With "big" changes I mean changes like the aforementioned whole new set of rules, here especially the introduction of the soft cap, which had a "big" impact on the way to play the game.

[simcc]

Well this game is still very good and doesn't require major changes in my opinion.

But I do think that the OOB series have some good mechanics that the developers can look into eg like supply control zone, planes need to land to refuel, deployment segregation of land, naval and air etc.

Other than that this game still gets my attention and time and still gives me much enjoyment thx to great scenario design. I am redoing a grand campaign atm which I still find it to be extremely fun even when I have done that many times.

[sn0wball]

I guess you could call producing DLC for a perfectly working game milking a cow, but PC certainly is no dead cow and the milk is really, really fresh and good.

[Stephen1024]

simcc yeah supply would be nice add but I ask if was implemented please can you make para's non supply dependent or can you add in transport plane that can drop supplies. That way you can try cover para's and other units till they can be in resupply. OOB pain in butt to use para's.

Rudankort love idea of smarter AI but agree I also like keep original AI, maybe if you find time for smarter AI you can have it as level 3 AI?

Also Rudankort I wrote medal thread to improve unit usage http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 21&t=72004

Also I liked the AT support idea someone came up with http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 21&t=71989

and lastly recon idea was http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 21&t=72006

I think mix of all those would really make Panzer Corps a new and fun challenge.

[KeldorKatarn]

Rudankort, I'd suggest some performance improvements and fixes and maybe the "make units traits actual traits instead of hardcoded" topic we're currently discussing in AT-defensive fire thread.

As for the improvements and fixed... since the latest patches the game has become a bit more unstable. For exampe during replays the animations often slow down if you leave the game alone and don't move the mouse or anything. The animations will go down to 1fps at times and then recover but sometimes also crash. If you keep using the mouse every now and then, it seems to work fine. I don't know what's up with that and whether it has to do with Win10 giving the thread less priority or something but if that's the case then maybe you should investigate how to tell Win10 that the game is still supposed to have full focus.

Also there's still a couple of replay player bugs. For example if I load a soviet corps replay the UI is not switched to the soviet UI. The same was true in beta for loading a savegame, that got fixed. but it is still a problem when loading replays.
Also, and you can see that being a problem both in my let's play videos AND on braccadas channel: While units move or attack, the play-pause-etc buttons of the replay UI can't be hit. They do not react. They only react in between unit animations. So you kind of have to mash the pause button if you want to interrupt and ongoing replay. That is very annoying when trying to record a video. I think braccada can confirm this.
That should be fixed somehow by making the UI react on a different thread maybe or whatever. I'm not sure how you implemented the UI event handling.

Other than these problems I think the "make hardcoded traits be equipment file traits" is the most powerful change and also the safest. If you just make them non-hardcoded and instead assign then in the equipment file, nothing changes in gameplay. The units just get their traits out of the file instead of hardcoded, but they still behave the same. BUT, modders can now make changes and test new stuff and if it can be confirmed that new traits or trait changes don't break old content in any way, those equipment file updates could be made part of a future official update. And of course it would give modders all kinds of new opportunities for cool new content, without breaking any legacy stuff.

[edahl1980]

I guess you could call producing DLC for a perfectly working game milking a cow, but PC certainly is no dead cow and the milk is really, really fresh and good.

You are right.
What raise my eyebrows is that they do not add simple things such as a German recon plane.
As much as i liked Soviet corps i question the Manchuria'45 scenario where you go up against 1936 equipment overstrenghted to 15.
If they had made the scenario with Japan'45 equipment they could have used it for further expansions anyways When Pacific corps arrive some day.

I agree to your statement, this game is a milking cow. But a few improvements here and there is required still.

[bebro]

Well, to be fair its not like the Red Army met a truly formidable fighting force in Manchuria 45. The Japanese did continue to use outdated equipment throughout the war, and much of the really modern stuff was held back for defending the Japanese mainland, or did not even make it into production in time.

Of course the argument can be made that the game is not an exact simulation, so can always offer better units to increase variety, boosting the AI etc.. I'm not disputing that, just saying it is not per se "wrong" to have outdated Japanese equipment in use on quite a big scale even late-war.

/my 2 cents

[Kevin2k]

With all these limitations in mind, we do still consider further improvements in the game, so any specific suggestions are welcome.

Option to make the background tiles lighter. To make the units stand out more from the background tiles. Example here: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 21&t=49042
Though I fear such a thing is not possible with current framework/renderer?