Old ideas and suggestions topics

[Rudankort]

Hello All!

Let's try to collect links to all past topics discussing possible improvements in Panzer Corps. Not necessarily on this site, any good in-depth discussions would be useful. Post all your findings here. Thanks!

[Kerensky]

Better feedback for user actions. For example when issuing a supply order, graphic plus sound display:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejzLuK6iSJo

One thing that troubled a lot of players, myself included, is the lack of reward for finishing campaigns. When you finish a campaign, you get a final text briefing, and then are kicked back to the main menu. In fact the only campaign with something more special than this is my Grand Campaign, where the East Branch actually has a special (and awesome) epilogue at the very end. It's that bonus scenario where the people in the credits show up as aircraft, and the bunkers spell out THANKS FOR PLAYING in ultra cheesy and adorable fashion. lol

I would like to see two things:
1. Campaign score screen, a single screen that displays the sum your campaign. This would display things like...
A. Final point score, if there is such a thing.
B. List of the player's surviving CORE units, and the units themselves can be inspected for their individual details, such as medals, heroes, exploits, et cetera.
C. List of player's dead.
D. List of defeated enemy units.
E. Number of Decisive victories, minor victories, losses, assuming these systems are in Panzer Corps 2.

Bonus for having each campaign with its own ending screen, and then another 'player record' where the sum of all of their completed campaigns are totaled up into a single database, like a career tracker. With an additional item to track: Number of campaigns completed.



2. Ability to have cut scenes.
I would hope this would be as simple as allowing the campaign file accept an AVI file as an entry line. So for example maybe it goes like...

Briefing 1 briefing
Scenario 1 scenario
Briefing 1 debriefing
Cutscene AVI FILE
Briefing 2 briefing
and so on

I'm not saying we need cutscenes everywhere, but at least the capacity to support them if and when we get them, including custom content.

Yes, these are all presentation requests and none of them impact gameplay one iota... but I'd still like to make the suggestion.

[Kerensky]

I thought about re-posting my idea about pro-active towed ATG units, but I don't want to clog this thread with my paragraphs on that topic you already read. Just don't forget about that idea, I really liked that idea.

[Mark50]

I think this discussion about artillery in PzC is pretty interesting. It touches on inconsistent range values and also on the fact that there are no real stat differences between guns of the same caliber which is probably something inherited from the original PG.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 88#p442488

[TSPC37730]

I like the idea of a final scoring system of some sort. A collection of some sort of metrics that would allow you to compare the results of one strategy vs another or perhaps one player vs another. I think it would be a nice plus.

[Yrfin]

2. Ability to have cut scenes.
I would hope this would be as simple as allowing the campaign file accept an AVI file as an entry line. So for example maybe it goes like...

Briefing 1 briefing
Scenario 1 scenario
Briefing 1 debriefing
Cutscene AVI FILE
Briefing 2 briefing
and so on

I'm not saying we need cutscenes everywhere, but at least the capacity to support them if and when we get them, including custom content.

Yes, these are all presentation requests and none of them impact gameplay one iota... but I'd still like to make the suggestion.

And don't forget give to players a option switch it off: "I dont wan't look at this sh..t again !".

[Yrfin]

I would like to see two things:
1. Campaign score screen, a single screen that displays the sum your campaign. This would display things like...
A. Final point score, if there is such a thing.
B. List of the player's surviving CORE units, and the units themselves can be inspected for their individual details, such as medals, heroes, exploits, et cetera.
C. List of player's dead.
D. List of defeated enemy units.
E. Number of Decisive victories, minor victories, losses, assuming these systems are in Panzer Corps 2.

Bonus for having each campaign with its own ending screen, and then another 'player record' where the sum of all of their completed campaigns are totaled up into a single database, like a career tracker. With an additional item to track: Number of campaigns completed.

- What a cat do, when he has nothing to do?
- Licks the own balls.

[kondi754]

I would like to see two things:
1. Campaign score screen, a single screen that displays the sum your campaign. This would display things like...
A. Final point score, if there is such a thing.
B. List of the player's surviving CORE units, and the units themselves can be inspected for their individual details, such as medals, heroes, exploits, et cetera.
C. List of player's dead.
D. List of defeated enemy units.
E. Number of Decisive victories, minor victories, losses, assuming these systems are in Panzer Corps 2.

Bonus for having each campaign with its own ending screen, and then another 'player record' where the sum of all of their completed campaigns are totaled up into a single database, like a career tracker. With an additional item to track: Number of campaigns completed.

- What a cat do, when he has nothing to do?
- Licks the own balls.

Nothing to add.

[Rudankort]

Kerensky
All great suggestions (and no, I did not forget about ATG idea ). I think, scoring system, if done right, could be a very important feature.

Mark50
Great example of a topic we need to undig and (re-)read. We need more topics like this!

[Mark50]

I think ThvN`s post here answering my questions on unit stats is also worth considering in regards to the ammunition amount units had in PzC (the last section of his post):
viewtopic.php?p=510630#p510630

Also, if I may, I want to add a suggestion here since it`s somewhat connected. When you do the unit stats, try to leave some room for maneuver. For example, in PzC, the Soviet Conscripts had 1 for Soft Attack and 1 for Hard Attack. If you later would have wanted to include Soviet Partisans what value would you have given them? Zero? The difference between various guns (AT especially iirc) in some categories is also very small, sometimes of just 1, so if you later want to add something in between them you`re stuck.

[Yrfin]

Old idea about Air combat rules
guille1434 » 04 Aug 2012 20:30

I hope this is the correct post to share an idea about air combat rules...

In order to give more variety (and maybe "realism") to air units combat, I think a new value can be added to the equipment file. This new parameter would be called, for example "ceiling" and it would have a numeric value.

The idea behind this is that air units and air defense units would have this "ceiling" value and it would work as follows:

Example: A recon aircraft unit, say, a Junkers Ju-86P or Ju-86R has a "ceiling " value = 10... Well, you cannot attack it with a fighter or an anti-aircraft gun whose "ceiling" value is less than 10. Only fighters or AA cannon with "ceiling" value = 10 (or more) can attack this recon plane.

Using this idea, for example, you wouldn't be able to defend from an strategic bomber doing carpet bombing with a 20 mm AA gun (which should have a rather low "ceiling" value, lower than a strategic bomber in any case). If, on the other hand, a fighter or fighter bomber makes an attack on a land or sea unit (this is made at low level flight, of course) any AA gun could defend against it, not regarding the attacking plane "ceiling" value (which could be higher than a light AA gun). In others words, the "ceiling" effect only applies to high level bombing attacks or recon overflights (may be this "rule" is triggered when the attacking bomber has a "carpet bombing" trait, if not, any surface attack is considered low level and the attackin air unit can be fired upon by any nearby AA unit).

If you decide to send a bomber or recon plane escorted by a fighter (or group of fighters) the value of the entire formation would be the lowest "ceiling" value of the unit in that group and can be intercepted by fighters with a "ceiling" value equal or higher the lowest ceiling of the attacking group. If you have a bomber unit with high ceiling value and low ceiling fighters, may be is a good idea to send the bomber unescorted, and wait for the enemy to only have lower ceiling fighters (or at least not all of his fighters can reach as high as your bomber or bombers!)

This idea would be interesting in my opinion because can create a sort of "arms race" between attacking bombers and air defense guns and fighters giving the advantage to one or other country as new unit models are available as the in-game time goes by. Besides, the equipment file could be expanded with more "specialized" unts, like high altitude recon planes, bombers and interceptors, special air defense units (missile launchers, like the german "Enzian"), etc. And, we would be adding a sort "3D" effect to air combat, which is one of the main advantages of using air units in warfare.
I think that all that gives more variety to this fabulous game is worth adding (or at least, be considered to add).

Last thing, this special "rules" can be made optional (maybe not everyone likes them, some folks prefering the classic and "simpler" air combat rules) just in the same way as when you start a campaign and can choose for "weather", "supplies", and "fog of war" options, adding a "3D air combat" (or similar label) check box to the others mentioned...

[guille1434]

Thanks Yrfin for bringing to focus this old post of mine... Indeed, I think the air combat rules are a bit lacking in complexity and depth (but they shouldn't be overly complex, keeping true to the "Panzer General" spirit)...

Sometime ago, I devised a different (simpler, I think) system to give some "3D" effect to air combat rules... I think is simpler (as I said) and also reflects another fact: Heavy AA guns are most effective only against high flying aircraft, and light, automatic fire small caliber cannons and machine guns are only effective against low level flying aircraft. So, may be you will need to protect your heavy AA batteries with light AA guns against low flying attackers...

The new system will be as follows: Just to "unfold" or split the Air Attack, Air Defense and Ground Defense values in several "altitude bands". Example: Low Air Attack, High Air Attack and Very High Air Attack (the same new "bands" should be defined for the other two parameters: Air defense and Ground defense (land and sea units, of course, will use only one value for Ground Defense, say the "Low" band). Having these split Air stats values, you can give light AA guns Low Attack only (and 0 value for High and Very High), which will make them able to attack only low flying aircraft (any aircraft making a ground attack run, except "carpet bombing" capable aircraft will be considered low flying and thus, can be fired by any "Low Air Attack" capable unit). On the other hand, heavy AA guns will have no or very low "Low Air Attack" values, making them a bad choice to fight against low flying aircraft. On the plus side for heavy AA weapons, they will have a positive "High Air Attack" value thus, they will be able to fire on strategic bombers, while light guns will not (because High Air Attack = 0).

The "Very High Band" will be reserved for very high flying aircraft, the ones that were generally immune to attack from surface weapons and interceptors... Examples: Ju-86R. Of course some special very high altitude interceptor could be added to the mix (maybe giving a specialization and utility niche to rocket interceptors, some advanced and rare propeller driven models and SAM missiles?)

Other advantage of this system is that you can simulate the different performance of aircraft in different flight levels, making some types of fighters more effective at low altitude than on high levels, and other types to be more effective as high altitude interceptors. (This was not possible with the older "Ceiling" value system). I cannot help thinking about the different variants of Spitfire fighters, the clipped wing LF variants optimized for low level combat and the HF ones (with extended wingtips) much more effective in high flight levels.

If you can to add one more layer (but a little more complexity) four bands can be defined: Low, Med, High and Very High (The med band can be a zone were bigger caliber light AA (for example 37 or 40 mm guns) can still be effective and heavy guns will also begin to show some effectiveness...

I think this is a good thing to add to the game, without making things much more complex, and best of all, it can be made optional...

Other positive aspect of this 3D effect is that if you just want to play with the old (one air level) system you can define all three or four band values to the same figure and the game will behave just like at present. Good for supporters of the classical air engagement rules!

[KeldorKatarn]

Well regarding old ideas... I'd like to next time not have to write another Dossier tool I'd like a nice statistics section in the game that shows me all the history of my units. What unit types they had over time, their progression not only in numbers but also graphically. What scenarios where they good in, which ones did they underperform in. Which of my units kills the most stuff etc etc. This will also be invaluable during beta testing since it will clearly show if certain unit types don't progess in the same way, don't get enough medals or heroes or XP compared to other types. In PzC 1 artillery and level bombers (bombers in general) were gaining XP like nuts while scouts for example were hard to level up. (I suggest giving scouts XP for finding units)

[bebro]

Just skimmed the posts so ignore if it's already there:

One thing I remember from PzC debates is the para + land transport issue, namely that you could buy a truck or other land TP for paras, but had to abandon it when you wanted to airdrop these paras.

pls. Consider changing it, so that you can buy a TP, but deactivate it for a paradrop (maybe for this specific scenario) temporarily, but not remove it completely so you have to buy anew. Might even have heavy air TP later that allows air- TPing heavier equipment as well.

Otoh, I could surely live without air TPing Tiger tanks around (Africa Korps - Caucasus scn IIRC). A Me 323 can carrry up to 11 tons, one Tiger tank = over 50 tons

[Yrfin]

One thing I remember from PzC debates is the para + land transport issue, namely that you could buy a truck or other land TP for paras, but had to abandon it when you wanted to airdrop these paras.

pls. Consider changing it, so that you can buy a TP, but deactivate it for a paradrop (maybe for this specific scenario) temporarily, but not remove it completely so you have to buy anew. Might even have heavy air TP later that allows air- TPing heavier equipment as well.

You just need Ability "Call Land Transport from City" (like Rail Transport).
A road equivalent where you get an allocated specialist transport to a road-connected city would be useful, especially for places that don't have trains and for units like gebirgsjagers/paratroops, or any other unit with a slower move (matildas, half tracks, Italian tanks) which could reasonably be loaded onto trucks and shipped by road to another city or depot without a permanent purchase.

[Rudankort]

pls. Consider changing it, so that you can buy a TP, but deactivate it for a paradrop (maybe for this specific scenario) temporarily, but not remove it completely so you have to buy anew.

What about just restoring all transports on units after mission where "discard transport" option was used?

[Razz1]

I don't think a two tier system for Fighter/strategic bomber verses Strategy bomber would be two complicated for a game like this.

Having two abilities, one for high and one for the low attack is not that complicated for a user in a game like this when using a AA unit.


For artillery we just need to use range and rate of fire differences more than the old game. Also, turn on suppression again for heavy artillery.

Don't forget about the Kamikaze trait either. This way a unit will forget about the math odds and just fight. It would also be nice if a unit with a kamikaze trait could also get a NEW trait "Reinforce" where they would automatically repair strength by one each turn.

[hs1611]

I'm too lazy to write everything again, so I'll just post quotes of some of my former comments/suggestions, with links to the topics.
Some of these old discussions are worth a second look now...

"Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions" - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 21&t=72849

On the Reserve List let me sort my units any way I want.
By unit type, date created, alphabetically, or even by drag & drop.

This is in line with my Battlegroup suggestion on the topic "Uncle HS’s suggestions for Panzer Corps II" - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=76502
I'll explain better there.

"Discussion: which campaign would you like to play?" - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 47&t=49101

I would like to play a campaign where you have a small core, 15 to 20 units maximum, and large numbers of auxiliary units.
In this way you can play with historical forces and still be able to have your core composed of ubber units.

"Allied Grand campaign discussion thread" - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 21&t=51997

If the e-file problem can be fixed the answer to minor allied nations is quite simple.
Make them non purchasable.
During the Polish scenarios give 2 or 3 (1 Inf, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter?) Polish CORE units to the player. All other units to be AUX.
In Norway give another 1 or 2 (maybe just 1 Inf) Norwegian CORE units to the player. Maybe a few French and let the player buy British CORE units, because they were both there.
Repeat in French Scenarios for French, Belgium, etc CORE units.
In Africa with Commomwealth CORE units.
They all have to be able to upgrade, but the only purchasable CORE units would be British, or British and US.

What about this idea based on your proposal:
I could give the polish units a name for example 1st Pol Inf, 1st Pol Armour, 1st Pol Fighter with Polish flag, same for norwegian and eventual other Allied countries.
When the British appear, in Norway for example, i could change the flag of the polish core units to UK flag and then they are upgradeable from the next scenario and they wouldn't lose any experience they gained in Poland.
This is theory though, i would have to test it first.

First of all, minor nations are not an issue to me.
I don't really care if they are represented as CORE, as AUX, or not at all. But a lot of other players do care.

With your solution, if a flag change between scenarios is possible, the players could keep the unit's names (1st Pol Inf, 1st Pol Armour, 1st Pol Fighter, etc...), therefore keeping those minor nation units in their CORES.
Since in real life minor nations units were supplied with british or american equipment that would also be realistic.
But then, you could simply buy british units and change their names, to 1st Free French Armour, for example.
I don't think that is what players who care want.
What they want are Polish (French, Belgian, etc...) units with British or american guns but with Polish uniforms, or at least under a Polish flag.

If you can't change the e-file to reflect that, I suggest you just forget about it.
Leave it to a MOD.

Incorporating minor nations units on players CORES.

"Allied Corps way to easy?" - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 3&start=40

The solution for how to design a proper Soviet campaign, forcing the player to use massive amounts of inferior units, is actually quite simple.
Small CORE, lots of AUX units.

In the beginning Soviet goals should be to defend only a few Victory Hexes or having a certain number of units escape encirclement, using AUX units as cannon fodder to delay the Germans and the CORE to achieve the objectives.
Later on, when the Soviets are on the offensive, do the same thing, weak AUX units to mass charge German lines, CORE units to exploit any breakthroughs.

In that way you can have only ubber units in your CORE, but so few that they won't be able to win any scenarios by themselves, so you'll need to use the AUX units.
AUX units, although numerous should be weak enough, or obsolete enough, that to achieve anything with them you have to be prepared to sacrifice them.

That way the player gets to have a strong CORE, with units that are able to survive scenario after scenario, but is still forced to use mass charges of cannon foder AUX units to accomplish his goals.

You can have 50 or 60 good German units against 10 or 15 Soviet CORE units and a lot of weak AUX units. So as the Soviets you will have numeric superiority but of inferior units, instead of the other way around as it is now on the German campaigns.

A Soviet Corps done right.
Or "done right" in my opinion of course...

[bebro]

pls. Consider changing it, so that you can buy a TP, but deactivate it for a paradrop (maybe for this specific scenario) temporarily, but not remove it completely so you have to buy anew.

What about just restoring all transports on units after mission where "discard transport" option was used?

I'd be cool with that - my main aim would be to get rid of rebuying TPs you already had before

Even when you have enough resources it feels kinda strange, and changing it would mean the player has one thing less to care about (even when it's only a small issue).

[Yrfin]

Still stay blurry for me ...
Old post about Unit price/Fuel/Ammo.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 47&t=54748