Page 2 of 3
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:31 am
by HansHafen
The voice audio sequences were awesome in PG! Please duplicate!
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:25 pm
by schwaryfalke
ORIGINAL: dobeln
It´s great to see that PG is being reborn in a format "true to the original". So, to get the forum going, what parts of PG1 does everyone think will stand the test of time? What parts of PG2+ should be allowed to influence Panzer Corps? Here is my take:
Core concepts that should not be changed (in my very humble opinion):
- The scale should be variable, not fixed, with a bias towards "larger" scenario scopes (not necessarily large scenario sizes - it´s important to keep narrative flow going). People want to feel that they are impacting history, directing grand sweeps, etc.
- One unit per hex. Nuff said. Not worried about this one though.
- Snappy, responsive interface. Really important for the "feel" of the game.
*OK
- The PG1 naval / air system.
*I think Pac gen is better for this
Concepts from AG and onwards (and other games) that could enhance the PG1 experience:
- Some limits on equipment availability. We all love our all-King-Tiger army, but it feels more satisfying if you build it over time, instead of just going to town on the shopping as soon as the "available" status on a piece of equipment turns on. Also gives the game a (slightly) more "real" feel. Don´t laugh.
* This is really a campaign and scenario design issue. The campaign gives too much prestige so that you can buy all the upgrades plus a scenario design that makes 1 Super tank ,better than having 2-3 lesser tanks (either due to a narrow advance or the AI having only super tanks). New PG2 Campaigns rarely suffer from this issue.
- Unit upgrades. People´s general made it possible to "pimp" your units a little extra, which made for good fun, and a more personalized army. Also, the ability to buy experience for new units with prestige meant that losing units later in the campaign was not an automatic case of "reload last save".
* Experienced Units.Again this tends to be a design issue and also a matter of balance.In new PG2 campaigns, the basic experience of new units is increased so that they can at least survive and not just be cannon fodder.
- Keeping the number of "core units" a bit lower than PG. A somewhat smaller core army with more customization options is preferable to having the sometimes unwieldy core army sizes of PG, imho.
- Tactical battles. The player should be able to play out all battles either as tactical engagements in the Close Combat engine, alternatively as a single soldier in the Call of Duty World at War engine. This makes the player connect with the action in a completely new way! The orignal Panzer General really limited the player in this regard, forcing him to focus on the strategic layer, instead of shooting his enemy in the face up close and personal.
*Sorry PG should not go this this level. It is a tactical/operational level game and should remain so.
Note. I bought and played all the 5star games (even star general,but not for long because it lacked the essence of PG (the campaign),PG2 (still on my hard drive,due to all the modders), PG3 (because it was SSI an after PG2 but it was a dissapointment)
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:16 pm
by Ken7
I think PG 1 was the best game I ever bought and Ive bought too many. lol. I will definately buy this game when it comes out and probably all the downloadable content also. So bring it onnnnnnnnn...
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:00 pm
by dsawan
Please allow for the grid or octagon shaped grid for spaces in game. i think it shd be made in the options screen. That way you can have the living battlefield or just like the orig pg1. I am playing PG forever as I type this and I have the grid set.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:15 am
by Obsolete
PG3 (because it was SSI an after PG2 but it was a dissapointment)
As I understand it, PG3D has the SSI logo applied to it, however they were already in their last death-rows and had been taken over by Ubisoft at the time, which also has its name branded on the same distro from that point. So, not all the decision making processes were in their hands... Finally Ubi seems to have axed the team after PGSE (or whatever was left of the original). What a sad day for wargamers that was... Bad enough that Talonsoft and Sierra also got taken over & axed.
Anyhow, the new air-mission mechanics in Peoples General was.... interesting. I'm not sure what the majory of players thought of it though. Didn't take that long to get used to it...
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:56 pm
by Texican
Using same maps for different scenarios (Belgium/France for 1940 and 1944 stuff) was always cool, I thought. Gives you the feeling that you are fighting again over the same ground.
Hope there is some of this.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:39 pm
by Obsolete
I thought it was a way to save on the expense of re-designing new maps
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:28 pm
by Texican
ORIGINAL: Obsolete
I thought it was a way to save on the expense of re-designing new maps
Probably is, but also gives you the feeling of liberating (or revisiting) an area from earlier.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:50 pm
by Obsolete
Well, any time more maps are one way or another re-introducted into a campaign to extend its length, I am happy. Each campain is basically its own story...
I have never got the addiction in any TOAW scenario (even the super long ones) that one gets from PG. Being able to bring a core with you & upgrade it from map to map... trying to gain experience etc. added so much more attachness and immersion.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:18 am
by colberki
And dont forget the dimensional portal where the aliens from Mars will arrive in the middle of the single soldier Call of Duty tactical action.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:16 pm
by HansHafen
Has anyone mentioned the ability to adjust the strength/experience received by the computer opponent? I know it's fashionable among the hardcore dudes to want to "fix" what was "broken" with Panzer General; i.e. it was too easy (to them). However, this may have made the game somewhat more appealing to the general gamer because who wants to play a computer game for fun that you can't beat? (without monumental effort or playing the same scenario 22 times in a row until you get the correct force balance and the absolute best force positioning at setup and the exact perfect movement and attack sequences necessary to eek out a minor victory so you can go on to the next scenario and repeat the same frustratingly unfun proceedure!)
I have played the first two scenarios from PG Forever(?) that this Panzer Corps is based on and quite frankly it is too difficult for a casual gamer to overcome. They will try a few scenarios, get beat, and probably never play it again. I have struggled and gotten past them barely, and my fun factor was none too high. My frustration factor was much higher having to start over again and again. The friggin computer out numbered me on every scenario and then got even more reinforcements. I had very little prestige and almost no artillery and the AI had artillery out the wazoo, so none of my units could even attack!
So, give the hardcore guys what they want, but don't forget that there are more casual gamers who should have their voice heard as well.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:20 pm
by Texican
I do think that "hard mode" ought to be tougher AI and not simply more units for the AI.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:23 pm
by Obsolete
A harder setting should also subtract prestige from the human player. Having a much more difficult time to grow your core or replace losses can really show its effects. Simply adding more prestige to the AI just adds more wack-a-mole fun.
However, I would not alter the combat effects, this can be somewhat game-breaking and produce some strange results.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:32 pm
by Rudankort
ORIGINAL: HansHafen
I have played the first two scenarios from PG Forever(?) that this Panzer Corps is based on and quite frankly it is too difficult for a casual gamer to overcome. They will try a few scenarios, get beat, and probably never play it again. I have struggled and gotten past them barely, and my fun factor was none too high. My frustration factor was much higher having to start over again and again. The friggin computer out numbered me on every scenario and then got even more reinforcements. I had very little prestige and almost no artillery and the AI had artillery out the wazoo, so none of my units could even attack!
PGF used PG scenarios which were balanced with weaker PG AI in mind. In Panzer Corps we shall of course balance the scens against the new AI, so the issue you've described will not be there.
But of course, Panzer Corps will offer several ways to handicap the game, including:
- different AI playing strength
- more or less resources to the AI
- more or less resources to the player
I expect that it will be possible to fine-tune difficulty in PzC very precisely.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:07 am
by HansHafen
Excellent, you have it well in hand!
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:57 pm
by Texican
I would like to see this game as hard to beat. Just as the Germans were facing near impossible odds, maybe the player should also.
By difficult to beat, I mean the German player should not find himself invading England or America very easily; should be an unusual game that gets the player that far.
Just my two cents.
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:21 pm
by Obsolete
Haha, I am currently invading England and it's easy enough... at least on my Windsor scenario (PG2). Though First-Strike & Combat Support tanks do help very much
But if one has played very well up to that point, he should deserve some sort of a break, don't you think?
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:03 pm
by Texican
ORIGINAL: Obsolete
Haha, I am currently invading England and it's easy enough... at least on my Windsor scenario (PG2). Though First-Strike & Combat Support tanks do help very much
But if one has played very well up to that point, he should deserve some sort of a break, don't you think?
In PG2, I recall merely
standard victories getting you into Sealion (unless I'm mistaken) and even for toppling the U.S.S.R. I'd almost flub it up on purpose to avoid this.
I think "MAJOR" (or highest level) victories ONLY should get things to that point (i.e., toppling the Russians, SeaLion, invading the U.S., etc...). Otherwise, skilled gamers will always miss out on some of the cool historical historical battles.
In fact, I don't know that it should be necessary that the Germans be allowed to win the war. You're commanding just a Panzer Korps or Panzer Armee, after all. Maybe your victory is just to win glorious battles right to the very end.
This scene from a campy old war movie says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7IxwOlr2PY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj48__hW76c
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:55 pm
by Obsolete
In fact, I don't know that it should be necessary that the Germans be allowed to win the war.
I don't have a problem with that, but then you will still get people complaining why is it the Axis players can never be allowed to WIN THE WAR
Being able to go onto the offensive and cross over-seas adds a lot more " Unf " to the story...
RE: Keeping the best - a feature discussion
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:52 am
by Texican
ORIGINAL: Obsolete
In fact, I don't know that it should be necessary that the Germans be allowed to win the war.
I don't have a problem with that, but then you will still get people complaining why is it the Axis players can never be allowed to WIN THE WAR
Being able to go onto the offensive and cross over-seas adds a lot more " Unf " to the story...
Maybe so, but you know Goring, at Nuremberg, said he knew late in the war they could never win in the traditional sense, but that there are "other types of victory". He was referring to a negotiated surrender or cease of hostilities agreement.
But I hear you. We will see what the devs have in store for us.