Maybe a silly question; But How this compared to PzC

[bostonrpgmania]

In terms of Map size and units it looks closer to PzC than BiN or BiI were?
Am I correct?
thanks

[Wilhammer]

Both 1 KM hexes, but the turn length is 2 hours in PzC and 1 day in BF.

BF plays faster due to the turn length, and the better interface.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

The logistics/supply/command stuff in Battlefront is more in-depth than in PzC. The graphics obviously are a matter of taste. The games tend to be physically bigger in PzC, but you get a full-on editor including maps in Battlefront. The AI seems better in Battlefront. Overall the experiences are rather different--Battlefront plays faster, for certain, which is generally nice.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

The logistics/supply/command stuff in Battlefront is more in-depth than in PzC.

Wombat what do you mean by this? I'd have thought the arty resupply, low-ammo, low-fuel sitautions in PzC more involved. Isn't supply in Battlefront just a matter of keeping your units in their HQ's span?

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

Battlefront plays faster, for certain, which is generally nice.

But what nobody seems able to post about anywhere is what is play like with just turns of 1 day length? I in fact thought the scale was 2 turns per day. Does this mean that you can move your units far and wide in a single day's span? What about night combat or combat's that could and would occur multiple times during a day - ie" the attack-counter attack-regroup cycle?

Doesn't this also make for some very short game play? How long is Market Garden for example... 5 turns?

Thanks,
Adam.

[Wilhammer]

Saipan is one day turns.

Market Garden is half day turns.

Supply is a function of HQ command radius and supply depot and/or truck supply head.

Two types of supply - defensive supply and offensive supply for combat usage, as well as mobility supply.

Units can carry emergency supplies for x turns.

Supply is effected by air interdiction/zoc and movement points.

Marget Garden is sixteen turns.

---------------------

PzC has different qualities - the shorter turns, defensive fire, more detailed supplies, a monster game like flavor to it.

My main reference here is 1980s board paper games; PzC is a lot like Wacht Am Rhein.

Battlefront is like AH's D-day - more beer and pretzely, but with the details a computerized system can provide.

You might finish a PBEM if Marget Garden in a week or two with Battlefront - for PzC, it might take months.

Both are good games and one is not batter than the other - the time concern has no effect on enjoying the Battles, and the interaction of units is fairly complex, which helps to simulate the greater detail of PzC.

The PzC combat systems, of course are direct fire games; BattleFront is odds based.

You'll find both approaches enjoyable.

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

...I'd have thought the arty resupply, low-ammo, low-fuel sitautions in PzC more involved. Isn't supply in Battlefront just a matter of keeping your units in their HQ's span?

Ohhhhh no. Resupply of artillery and combat ammunition are modeled so that consumption rates must be considered. Shooting artillery missions and taking part in combat every turn are not possible as consumption will out pace resupply very quickly. Pulling a unit out of the combat line and resting it for a turn or two is a highly rewarded tactic.

But what nobody seems able to post about anywhere is what is play like with just turns of 1 day length? I in fact thought the scale was 2 turns per day. Does this mean that you can move your units far and wide in a single day's span? What about night combat or combat's that could and would occur multiple times during a day - ie" the attack-counter attack-regroup cycle?

Turn length is set by the scenario designer as is the case in the DB series. Movement capability and movement costs are scaled to the scenario turn length. Night combat can either be factored into the scenario settings (12 & 24 hour turns) or built as a dedicated turn type (i.e. full on night turn) for 4 & 8 hour turn length scenarios.

[Duck Doc]

I have experience with the HPS Campaigns game engine - mostly PBEM. While the Panzer Campaigns games may present more units & a "monster game" feel I have found the DBWW2 games & now BF to be much more detailed & complex.

While it is possible to play on a superficial level the more you play, the more detail is revealed & the level of complexity in SSG's games is deep. Drop by the SSG forum & read some of the articles there to understand what I am talking about. However you can play SSG 's games without being an expert having a detailed understanding of the mechanics & is the way many of us get into playing. While much of the detail in Panzer Campaigns is opaque to the player it is available in SSG's games. You just have to look deeper.

Although fatigue & morale is not modeled in SSG's games the supply side is much more involved & challenging than when playing Panzer Campaigns the usual way (without virtual supply trucks or explicit supply - even playing with either of the above the supply model in SSG's games is much more integral & important - armchair generals talk tactics, real generals talk logistics).

I like both types of games & in many ways it is an apples & oranges comparison. I am not a good player but the more I play the more I am leaning towards SSG's games now especially with the release of BF. It offers more satisfying game play for me.

ORIGINAL: Wilhammer


PzC has different qualities - the shorter turns, defensive fire, more detailed supplies, a monster game like flavor to it.

My main reference here is 1980s board paper games; PzC is a lot like Wacht Am Rhein.

Battlefront is like AH's D-day - more beer and pretzely, but with the details a computerized system can provide.

You might finish a PBEM if Marget Garden in a week or two with Battlefront - for PzC, it might take months.

Both are good games and one is not batter than the other - the time concern has no effect on enjoying the Battles, and the interaction of units is fairly complex, which helps to simulate the greater detail of PzC.

The PzC combat systems, of course are direct fire games; BattleFront is odds based.

You'll find both approaches enjoyable.

[Adam Parker]

Thanks guys for all the above.

[grenade magnet]

Wilhammer: I show MG scenario is 18 turns in length...perhaps I missed something? It's possible...
 
Dale H:
I agree with your compare and contrast of BF [or DB] and PzC. Both systems have a place and a "point". I think the SSG games, as you implied, are much more intutive and "eaiser" to "get." The SSG graphical representation and presentation of the battles they model are superior to the PzC series. This tends to make the SSG product eaiser to play than the PzC series. That's my opinion and not a challange to PzC supporters. I own all the games of both designs and prefer the SSG interpertation and approach but enjoy and support both approaches.
As for logistics: I think the way SSG system[s] handle supply is sheer genius. It is simulated and abstracted but not tedious and boring...the same logic I appreciate [and support] in card driven boardgames that tend to dominate the traditional boardgame market these days.
 
I love and support this hobby. I, for one, am happy to support SSG and Matrix in continuing to produce high quality games for this market. I could not produce these products myself [I'm way too stupid for that] but I dearly love to play 'em...keep it up fellers!
 
Regards,
Shawn