Matrix Games Forums

Hi,

Firstly PzC has to my mind been a huge success. It does what it does outstandingly. But there are few missing features that if present would launch PzC to being by far the best tactical wargame out there.

What follows is not a comprehensive list, trying not to be too greedy but realistic in my wish list [;)].

1) The first item on my list is the only one that I rate as so important it needs to be patched. In truth, it is close to being a show stopper [;)]. That is the ability to order your units to hold their fire/hide until ordered to open fire. As a defender, without this feature, one cannot play the game realistically. In PzC, as in CM and Squad Leader, you play the part of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander but also the squad commander. One very important role is to decide when to open fire in defence. For the human defender the game currently does not work.

The next three features I would like to see in the next version of PzC, and I hope there will be in long line of PzC games [:)].

2) The ability to toggle on/off some player aid to help in reviewing ones troops when setting orders or reactions. To make troops standout more by highlighting them or their bases.

3) Infantry to suffer casualties one man at a time.


4) All troops, well infantry and guns anyway, to start scenarios in foxholes. Also foxholes and trenches to be modelled with just the head and shoulders of troops sticking out as in CM. Trenches are not to be a terrain feature that can be sighted in themselves. This defeats the entire object to trenches.

The four features listed above would go a long way to improve what is already a stunning game.

All the best,
Kip.
PS. I could have mentioned other matters such as the wildly unrealistic scenario lengths in PzC. You have developed a very fine combat simulator; even if you only set out to build a shot-them-up-game [;)]. In the shipped scenarios by having such short games, 25 turns with penalties after 15 turns, you force the player to use unrealistic tactics and suffer unnecessary casualties. You are confusing “operations” and “tactics”. At the tactical level the player should have at least three times the game length to complete the shipped scenarios there by enabling him to use your stunning game to its maximum potential in terms of realism.

In the shipped scenarios by having such short games, 25 turns...

As I understood it a scenario would end when one of the sides reached the top of the VP gauge regardless of number of turns.
Can't find anything in the manual about a 25-turn limit.
Have only just started to play the game so have not reached turn 25 myself.
Is this true for every scenario?

I agree with your points. A "Hide" command is a must for the defending player.
Also, while tank vs tank models seems very good IMHO, infantry is too simplified.

However, it's a great game, I am having lot of fun.

Bye

Thanks Kip, you'll be glad to know all of these are on our list, except for the 25 turn limit. That one was assigned based on playtesting rather than reality as we felt that having the limit longer would entirely remove time pressure on most players. Keeping the feeling of urgency going (which was a feature of both historical campaigns) felt like the right thing to do, via the Turn 15+ Defender bonus and the 25 turn limit. Note that if you prefer longer scenarios, that's a really easy thing to change as well - We'll also discuss whether we can put it higher, but for now I expect it to stay the same.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

On the 25 turn limit. I know you can change this in the scenario xml, but what about the 15 turn defender bonus? Is that in the code?

ORIGINAL: kipanderson
3) Infantry to suffer casualties one man at a time.

People expect this in computer games nowdays.
But is this realistic?
Does the company commander really know in the heat of battle how many men in each squad or team are fit or wounded? How many bullets or grenades each man has? What their canteen levels are? There is no fog of war in that. That's too CM.

The computer could keep track of each man none-the-less and not let the player know except by the effectiveness of the squad.

If to be consistant the experience of each soldier would be tracked through the campaign not the unit in general. A few men will gain experience but the losses to each squad must be replaced with green troops.

There is not a 25 turn limit. The game ends when either player's VPs = 75% of the total potential VPs that they can earn. Potential VPs are the value of all objectives + the point value of the opposing side's forces. However starting turn 15, the defender starts getting victory points every turn so this will effectively cap a game to a theoritical turn limit based on the total potential of that scenario.


BTW, the 'turn limit' field in the XML is not used at all by the game. It is a hanger-on from our Tin Soldiers games that we decided to keep in case we decide to add 'turn limited' games in the future [:)]

Thanks!

Mobius, hi,

“Does the company commander really know in the heat of battle how many men in each squad or team are fit or wounded?” No…however…[;)]

You are not only playing the role of the company commander; you are also the platoon and squad commanders. In PzC you issue orders to squads but in light of the orders from the platoon commander. But you still play the role of squad commander as well as platoon commander. You may wish for a company commander’s game, but PzC is not it. You are not meant only to know what the company commander knows.

PzC may be “too CM” because it is an identical scale and you play similar roles. There is nothing wrong in wishing for a true command game, each to their own. But CM, Squad Leader and PzC are not it.

Those looking for a command game should try Point Of Attack II over at HPS Simulations. I am an unhinged fan of “realism” in wargames, can do the full rant on what is meant by realism in wargames and simulations [;)]. But in games where I am the “single controlling mind” I like to see/know what each of the characters who’s role I play can see/know. i.e. including the squad and AFV commanders.

Hence the need for body counts in PzC [:)].

All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.

ORIGINAL: Mobius
But is this realistic?
Does the company commander really know in the heat of battle how many men in each squad or team are fit or wounded? How many bullets or grenades each man has? What their canteen levels are? There is no fog of war in that. That's too CM.
The computer could keep track of each man none-the-less and not let the player know except by the effectiveness of the squad.
If to be consistant the experience of each soldier would be tracked through the campaign not the unit in general. A few men will gain experience but the losses to each squad must be replaced with green troops.

I should have specified that we're looking to add more resolution to infantry casualties, but not down to the individual man. More like casualty "step".

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: koiosworks
There is not a 25 turn limit. The game ends when either player's VPs = 75% of the total potential VPs that they can earn. Potential VPs are the value of all objectives + the point value of the opposing side's forces. However starting turn 15, the defender starts getting victory points every turn so this will effectively cap a game to a theoritical turn limit based on the total potential of that scenario.
BTW, the 'turn limit' field in the XML is not used at all by the game. It is a hanger-on from our Tin Soldiers games that we decided to keep in case we decide to add 'turn limited' games in the future [:)]

Whoops, I thought that was active - in any case ten turns worth of defender bonus VPs effectively means that the scenario is over by Turn 25 if the Attacker hasn't already won.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Der Oberst
On the 25 turn limit. I know you can change this in the scenario xml, but what about the 15 turn defender bonus? Is that in the code?

That's in the code, but I'd like to move it out to the scenario XML file in the future, since it's ideal for this campaign but not necessarily for all scenarios.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I should have specified that we're looking to add more resolution to infantry casualties, but not down to the individual man. More like casualty "step".

That makes more sense.
And when you get to doing British you need to split squads to ride in Universal Carriers.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Der Oberst
On the 25 turn limit. I know you can change this in the scenario xml, but what about the 15 turn defender bonus? Is that in the code?

That's in the code, but I'd like to move it out to the scenario XML file in the future, since it's ideal for this campaign but not necessarily for all scenarios.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik, I just don't know if it is right to simulate operational time pressure on this (tactical) scale in the way chosen.

What I mean to say is I don't think Hoth said to his boys "Boys the only way we will get to Stalingrad on time is to pull those trigger fingers faster!" [:D] Charging headlong for the objectives to save *5* minutes for an engagment would make zero difference to the overall campaign and is almost certainly what didn't happen.

Given that in-between scenario screens show a long breakdown of units recovered and *repaired* I imagine the time saving of not having to repair just one extra AFV would be several orders of magnitude greater than carelessly damaging said AFV for a saving of just 5 minutes (turn 15/25) in the first place.

The pressure was on the larger scale. Should we wait for the 17th to join us before pressing on? Should we abandon field repair to press on? Force march despite low supplies, etc etc. I am sure that if one analysed the actual time spent *fighting* as a percentage of the total campaign time it would work out to be miniscule [:)]

Just a quick idea but maybe a more accurate VP system would model attacker attrition instead of time pressure at this level. For example as Germany to win a given scenario you must secure the objectives (for say > than X turns) and still have say Y% of your initial force point allocation intact at the end of the engagement (subtract points if equpiment damaged)? I don't know if such an idea would be subject to gamey antics. I do know that it is much harder to code a good AI (both offensive and defensive) to do what I have proposed [;)]

Cheers

Well in general most commanders on the attack were pressured to push. This is perhaps what the timing represents? Can't have your blokes lolli-gagging about! [:)]

Hi,,


“Erik, I just don't know if it is right to simulate operational time pressure on this (tactical) scale in the way chosen.” Agreed… [:)]

The 15 turn rule is indeed confusing operational time pressure and tactical. In PzC the average attacking force is what many today would call a battalion taskforce. A battalion taskforce with two-three small hamlets to clear over an area of similar to PzC maps would expect to take several hours to achieve its aim. In the real world troops are very keen to live, their commanders are also keen to see the minimum casualty price paid for clearing an area.

Winning in PzC should be matter of clearing the map with the minimum casualties suffered, clearing the map at the best possible casualty ratio even if it took over 75 turns. As it surely would in the real world nine times out of ten. Even in WWII [;)].

All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.

Actually I would like to see Koios implement some type of scriptable (or otherwise) VP system to allow more flexibility for future scenarios.

Possible variables to consider (off the top of my head):

Objectives gained (or lost)
Time limits
Units exiting map
Enemy units (or force points) destroyed
Friendly units (or force points) remaining
Units that must survive or must be destroyed
etc, I am sure there are many others

I agree with Erik, it looks like Koios has done an excellent job in moving almost everything into XML, it would be good to see the VP system out of hard code and into XML as well.

A (poorly formated) XML example

<victory>
<scoreing>
<score side="German" id="GVP" value="Russian_FP_Destroyed*2 + Objective_1*50 + Objective_2*25 - German_FP_Destroyed*10"/>
<score side="Russian" id="RVP" value="Turn_Num*10 + German_FP_Destroyed*5"/>
</scoreing>
<outcome>
<winner side="German" id="Decisive" bool_value="GVP > 3 * RVP"/>
<winner side="German" id="Marginal" bool_value="(GVP = RVP) and (Turn_Num > 10)"/>
etc
etc
</victory>

You get the idea

Laryngoscope,

ORIGINAL: Laryngoscope
Erik, I just don't know if it is right to simulate operational time pressure on this (tactical) scale in the way chosen.

What I mean to say is I don't think Hoth said to his boys "Boys the only way we will get to Stalingrad on time is to pull those trigger fingers faster!" [:D] Charging headlong for the objectives to save *5* minutes for an engagment would make zero difference to the overall campaign and is almost certainly what didn't happen.

Given that in-between scenario screens show a long breakdown of units recovered and *repaired* I imagine the time saving of not having to repair just one extra AFV would be several orders of magnitude greater than carelessly damaging said AFV for a saving of just 5 minutes (turn 15/25) in the first place.

The pressure was on the larger scale. Should we wait for the 17th to join us before pressing on? Should we abandon field repair to press on? Force march despite low supplies, etc etc. I am sure that if one analysed the actual time spent *fighting* as a percentage of the total campaign time it would work out to be miniscule [:)]

Just a quick idea but maybe a more accurate VP system would model attacker attrition instead of time pressure at this level. For example as Germany to win a given scenario you must secure the objectives (for say > than X turns) and still have say Y% of your initial force point allocation intact at the end of the engagement (subtract points if equpiment damaged)? I don't know if such an idea would be subject to gamey antics. I do know that it is much harder to code a good AI (both offensive and defensive) to do what I have proposed [;)]

That's a good point and I agree from a strict realism view. On the other hand though, a classic problem with operations on a tight timetable is that a small delay in the spearhead can lead to cascading delays down the line.

However, the current system does make the game more fun and conveys the sense of operational urgency down to the tactical level. You can still win later, but your victory won't be as decisive as a quick one. We're looking at a savings of 15-20 minutes per engagement which I won't argue is operationally critical, but the abstraction works since differences of an hour or two operationally were actually significant during this campaign as far as whether a defender's reserves would be able to move into place or a breakthrough advance could continue, etc.

We'd like to put this system into the scenario XML file so that the designer can set any time bonus for either side. Your suggestion on a loss-based bonus is already in there to a degree in that we award VPs based on damaged and destroyed units, then look at the ratio to determine the "quality" of your victory. However, perhaps we could do more on that.

Regards,

- Erik

I fully agree with Laryngoscope and Kip, for what it's worth, while patiently awaiting the&nbsp;Mac conversion. [:'(]
&nbsp;
All the best
&nbsp;
Andreas

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
...you'll be glad to know all of these are on our list

Hi.
Maybe a silly question but: do you mean "a list for ...a coming patch" or "a list for ...PZC 2" ?

Gloo,

It's a mix - some are more work than others.

A hold fire ability is in the first update. Also, we decided to add more detailed infantry modeling as a major feature to first update. This was originally planned for a future expansion but we decided to add it in as a free post-release feature because of the demand for it.

Additional highlights for your units and foxholes/entrenchements are scheduled for the first expansion. We are aiming to do several expansions at a lower price two or three times per year rather than a full PzC 2 a year or two down the road.

Regards,

- Erik