Matrix Games Forums

One feature I began to dislike about Panzer General was how there was no limit on exactly what you could buy with your prestige points. Like in the Budapest scenario I found that I just kept on buying King Tigers (unless my air force was in trouble), and by the end of the scenario I had about 8 King Tigers wreaking havoc on the battlefield. If I was limited to buying say 2 King Tigers, then I might think about buying something other than a tank.

Zakhal stated my biggest grip with Panzer General; the game became more of a puzzle with very little strategy. It limited the player in the ways to win. I am eagerly awaiting this title and I hope it does not play in this way.
Happy Easter!

The fact is that tiger tanks were useless once the allies had the air power. They decimated the tigers. However this was mid to late in ww2. Perhaps if you are worried about the tiger tanks , we should look at a fuel modifier issue. The fact is that a Tiger tank usage of fuel was as horrendous as its damage it could do. It will be interesting if we see as the game proceeds that later in the conflicts the Germans deal with the fuel issue and poor resources to contradict the whole Tiger tank fear some of you have. Just my opinion,

ORIGINAL: Rudankort
I hear this opinion from time to time, but it does not really match my own playing experience, so I wonder why people feel this way. Can you give a few examples? Thus, what limited way to win exactly did you need to figure out in PG Warsaw, Norway, Low Countries, France?..

I think its too easy to make simple mistake that then force you to reload the game. Like in puzzle you cant afford mistakes.

The game would be more fun if you remove time limits all together and add more prestige to buy units. You win simply if you manage to capture all the objectives before your troops run out of steam (strenght & prestige points).

There might still be a time limit but it would be very loose (and no "rush" awards) or the battle would end when both side agree to truce Close Combat style. The real battle would actually be about beating the enemy on the battlefield, not about rushing against the clock and dodging suprises.

ORIGINAL: ijontichy

One feature I began to dislike about Panzer General was how there was no limit on exactly what you could buy with your prestige points. Like in the Budapest scenario I found that I just kept on buying King Tigers (unless my air force was in trouble), and by the end of the scenario I had about 8 King Tigers wreaking havoc on the battlefield. If I was limited to buying say 2 King Tigers, then I might think about buying something other than a tank.

The game follows a rock-paper-scissors system. If a player wants to go fully one-way, then he's free to do so... including gaining penalties as he does it.

I'm not so sure we need to limit people's options here.

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

ORIGINAL: ijontichy

One feature I began to dislike about Panzer General was how there was no limit on exactly what you could buy with your prestige points. Like in the Budapest scenario I found that I just kept on buying King Tigers (unless my air force was in trouble), and by the end of the scenario I had about 8 King Tigers wreaking havoc on the battlefield. If I was limited to buying say 2 King Tigers, then I might think about buying something other than a tank.

The game follows a rock-paper-scissors system. If a player wants to go fully one-way, then he's free to do so... including gaining penalties as he does it.

I'm not so sure we need to limit people's options here.

Restricting how many of a type is not a good solution. The best solution is to address the core issues that resulted in this behavior.

IMO this was caused by 3 main design issues(use of King Tigers and why many unit types where not used):-

1. Limited unit numbers - If i can only buy 1, i will buy the best since the viable option of buying 2 lesser units is not available.
2. Available prestige/cost of Units - You could afford to buy only the best and the difference in cost did not reflect the in game effectiveness of units.

3. how the scenarios are designed and whether they force you to go for a strategy with a narrow focus(only the best units) or a wider focus (lots of lesser units).

If you are not already familiar with PG2, i would suggest looking at the evolution of the efiles and campaigns made by modders (1. was not an issue in PG2, but 2 and 3 were)

How about a unit attachment scheme?  Something that allows a combat bonus when a unit's multi-echelon variety configuration is achieved.  Let's say you have a leader and he has a command capacity of 5 units(they are not out of command range of each other).  If you fill that capacity with the right mix of units, say a tank, 2 infantry, recon and an artillery there is an all around bonus to the different combat factors.  Obviously if the command structure is loaded towards one type of combat parameter it will exhibit a capacity for that type of firefight but be penalized if meeting a better arrayed command with a propensity for defense of that enemy configuration.