HPS Modern Campaigns

[KG_Norad]

I am thinking of getting a large scale East Front game. I have played Ardennes Offensive so I have an idea how Korsun Pocket will play. I have not played any Pzr Campaign though. I have played campaign series which I know is a smaller scale but is it similar?
Also which Pzr Campaign offers the most variety, pbem challange and balance? Any Suggestions?

Thanks for any input!
Michael

[Priest]

I guess that, that would depend on what theater of operations that you want to play. I have Tobruk '41 and think it's great.

[Mantis]

Get TOAW CoW, and play DNO, FitE, Barbarossa, ETO, etc etc etc.

I'm doing KP right now, and although it's enjoyable, it doesn't hold a candle to CoW, which has infinitely more replay value.

[Don Maddox]

Get TOAW CoW, and play DNO, FitE, Barbarossa, ETO, etc etc etc.

I'm doing KP right now, and although it's enjoyable, it doesn't hold a candle to CoW, which has infinitely more replay value.

That's the problem with the whole Panzer Campaigns/Modern Campaigns series - lack of replay value. They are very good games, but I some some serious problems with the choice of scale. I really wish John would reduce the scale to 250 or 500 meters per hex. That would make the series play so much better.

I can't comment on Korsun Pocket from MatrixGames. I've heard good things about it, but I have not tried it.

[KG_Norad]

Specifically North German Plain 85? How does this game model Electronic Warfare? I assue it just puts HQ's out of contact but are there specific units that can initiate EW or is it just a random thing done in the background?

How about the system as a whole is it enough of a departure from PZC to capture modern combat or does it just feel like PZC with modern vehicles in name only?

[Don Maddox]

I have it, but I have not opened it yet. I have played Fulda Gap '85 which is also one of the Modern Campaigns titles. They are detailed, but I have the same issue with them that I have with the whole Panzer Campaigns series: the scale just does not work.

Wargames can be created at any scale, platoon, company, or even division if that's your thing. But the methods used to simulate such battles must be different. In TOAW, there is no LOS and elevations are limited to normal, hills, and mountains. Because TOAW is played out on a much larger scale, elevation does not play much of a factor. In East Front II, elevation is a major part of the simulation as the game takes place at the tactical level.

IMHO, the whole Panzer Campaigns series is trying to have it both ways. The engine is set up like a tactical wargame. Elevations and terrain are modeled in great detail and LOS is a major factor in combat. Yet each hex represents at least a kilometer. This leads to a situation where almost every unit on the battlefield has a range of 1 (or 2 at most), which basically renders the whole elevation model somewhat useless. The vast majority of units can only effectively fire at adjacent units, so why even model elevation? Panzer campaigns then recreates massive battles that are really corps-level or above in scope. This makes playing a single turn an exercise in excruciating micromanagement. As I said, the scale just doesn't work.

Is the Modern/Panzer Campaigns game engine sound? Yes, I like it a lot. But the system needs an overhaul. This system lends itself to tactical or grand tactical combat, but it is currently hamstrung by the dubious hex scale. If John Tiller would change the scale to 300-500 meters/hex, then Panzer Campaigns would really shine and the tactical nature of the maps would make 100% more sense.

The Panzer Campaigns team is trying to do the impossible. They are trying to use a tactical wargame to represent corps-level combat, and it just doesn't fly. The scale of the hexes needs to be reduced and the scenarios need to be adjusted to model a piece of these larger battles. They're trying to be all things to all people and wargames that try to do that fail. It's a good system that has been hamstrung by a very questionable design decision. Can you still have fun with t? Yes, it can still be enjoyable to an extent. But ask around, and you will find a whole lot of people who will tell you the same thing I just said.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

I have ME67 and I love it (especially the 2004 Jihad scn by Volcano Man), but it also has a lot to do with me being interested in Israel, and when it comes down to it, the game isn;t that great - though it's lots of fun :)

as for EW...well, sometimes you might get a rough location for an enemy HQ, but what strength or level (Corps, BDE, BN) that HQ is is unknown.

basically, if you play ATF/DA, then MC is going to be a step down in beer'n'pretzels wargaming ;)

[Redwolf]

I don't like these Tiller games.

They are dialog box clickfest and have severely undermodeled unit models. What Don said, the scale just doesn't work with the homogenous markers.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

hey now - they're not all bad... ;)

the Squad Battles series is really good :D

[Don Maddox]

One thing I do not like about the Panzer/Modern Campaigns is how the unit markers are displayed. They have no info on them at all other than a NATO marker. Yes I know there is a 3D mode which does have the info, but that mode is nothing short of hideous.

DA and POA2 have the same problem, but those sims have a very small number of units on the map compared to Modern Campaigns, so it's very easy to keep track of what is what. In a typical Modern Campaigns game, you have a thousand markers on the screen and no idea who or what they are unless you click on each one indivudually. TOAW is 300% better in this regard. Considering that Panzer Campaigns is now on the 459th installment of the series, you would think this would have evolved...

[kbluck]

I tried Fulda Gap '85. I agree with Don; essentially unplayable.

I don't think anybody will accuse me of shying away from fine details. But that game was out of control. I played the intro scenario with 11ACR, and thought to myself that there seemed to be an awful lot of "chits" on the map for a small battalion-sized engagement. Then I looked at the "grand" scenario.

Are they freaking kidding me? I have to plot paths and actions for every single battalion and no small number of companies in three Warsaw Pact armies or three NATO corps? And do it again every 4 scale hours? And keep track of logistics and fire support down to the level of individual sorties?

I don't think so. Not without a staff.

It reminded me of the "Europa" series that modeled all of WWII at the battalion level. That game (actually, about two dozen of them) was huge, too, but there was one crucial difference: you can see the whole map in one sweeping glance and "grok" the overall situation easily. FG85 had two zoom levels, neither of which was ideal. This sort of situational awareness is one area that computer wargames have consistently failed to even reach parity with, much less improve on PnP games.

There was no large-unit integrity; battalions from entirely different divisions just sort of mushed together with no particular organization, and no good way to view the situation at, say, the division level rather than the battalion level.

I also found the FG85 combat resolution model to be incredibly stingy. I find it hard to believe that a defending company of M1 tanks can engage an advancing Soviet battalion of BTRs for an hour and only destroy a handful. That's certainly not what happens in ATF, for example.

Maybe the engine works for WWII campaigns. IMO it didn't work well at all for FG85.

--- Kevin

[Don Maddox]

I largely agree with kbluck. I do, however, think the underlying engine is sound. I just think the game is hamstrung by a truly archaic interface that is completely at odds with what the system is trying to do.

There absolutely needs to be three good zoom levels, and considering the scope of the scenarios involved, one could probably make a good argument for a fourth. I've always played the Campaign series games from the 3D perspective (John Tiller did those too). It was one of the only wargames of this type that I can think of where the 3D looked good and actually worked. The various zoom levels allowed you to get down into the nitty-gritty or view the entire battlefield (excpet for really huge scenarios). In contrast, the Panzer Campaigns interface is a significant step backwards IMHO. The 3D graphics mode is so hellishly ugly that it's just painful to look at. The 2D mode, as kbluck correctly pointed out, is very poorly implemented compared with TOAW.

I don't mind gigantic scenarios and I appreciate the level of detail that John attempted to add, however, all of this was basically moot because the interface was so poor the game just wasn't enjoyable. More than once I fell asleep in the middle of a turn.

I have nearly all of the Panzer/Modern Campaigns games so it isn't a matter of me forming an opinion off just one of them. I have suggested this to HPS more than once. If they would do the following I really believe the series would be a huge hit:

1) combine all existing PZC/MC into a single game
2) Reduce the hex scale to 250-500 meters/hex
3) totally revamp the unit counters so they display information similar to TOAW
4) Throw out the current interface and put in a much sleeker, state of the art cotrol system. I want multiple options to view all sorts of information about both friendly and enemy forces.
5) Include the map editor so that the community can begin to do something useful with the software.

As it stands now, the PZC series is a gigantic "should have been" in the books of many wargamers. What a shame.

[Alkiviadis]

I largely agree with kbluck. I do, however, think the underlying engine is sound. I just think the game is hamstrung by a truly archaic interface that is completely at odds with what the system is trying to do.

There absolutely needs to be three good zoom levels, and considering the scope of the scenarios involved, one could probably make a good argument for a fourth. I've always played the Campaign series games from the 3D perspective (John Tiller did those too). It was one of the only wargames of this type that I can think of where the 3D looked good and actually worked. The various zoom levels allowed you to get down into the nitty-gritty or view the entire battlefield (excpet for really huge scenarios). In contrast, the Panzer Campaigns interface is a significant step backwards IMHO. The 3D graphics mode is so hellishly ugly that it's just painful to look at. The 2D mode, as kbluck correctly pointed out, is very poorly implemented compared with TOAW.

I don't mind gigantic scenarios and I appreciate the level of detail that John attempted to add, however, all of this was basically moot because the interface was so poor the game just wasn't enjoyable. More than once I fell asleep in the middle of a turn.

I have nearly all of the Panzer/Modern Campaigns games so it isn't a matter of me forming an opinion off just one of them. I have suggested this to HPS more than once. If they would do the following I really believe the series would be a huge hit:

1) combine all existing PZC/MC into a single game
2) Reduce the hex scale to 250-500 meters/hex
3) totally revamp the unit counters so they display information similar to TOAW
4) Throw out the current interface and put in a much sleeker, state of the art cotrol system. I want multiple options to view all sorts of information about both friendly and enemy forces.
5) Include the map editor so that the community can begin to do something useful with the software.


As it stands now, the PZC series is a gigantic "should have been" in the books of many wargamers. What a shame.
Concur, althought I'd say 500 mt/hex.They would also have a lot more replay value if one could redeploy before play...a "magic Move" similar to D.A.

[switch_back]

4) Throw out the current interface and put in a much sleeker, state of the art cotrol system. I want multiple options to view all sorts of information about both friendly and enemy forces.

I'm afraid I disagree with this comment, I find the interface is one of the easiest I have ever come across, and I do feel well informed of what is going on in the battlefield.

I quite enjoy these Tiller games :D

Terry

[switch_back]

Hi All,

I just wanted to enquire whether it would be worth suggesting to Don that a HPS Modern Campaigns section to the forum was added, Im really enjoying Fulda Gap 85 and wondered if there are enough people that enjoy these Tiller games as much as me to have a forum section where tactics and allsorts could be discussed?

over to you people.


Terry

[Don Maddox]

We used to have a whole Panzer Campaigns section and ladder at one time. Despite our best efforts, we just couldn't seem to generate any interest in it. I'm open to the possibility, but I will have to be convinced.

[switch_back]

Yeah, I thought rather than a single suggestion from me, I thought it best that the people that actually use the forum convey their thoughts on this idea.

To be honest I prefer the look and feel of the Modern Campaign series, though they are both similar, I just think they play better and scenarios are more exciting. I am yet to find a scenario where you end up with nothing to fight by the end of the scenario, the units just keep coming, the battlefield is never empty.

Lets just see eh Don ;)

Terry

[switch_back]

37 views and no-one has given any opinion what so ever?? :rolleyes:

[KG_Norad]

I happen to like Panzer Campaigns alot. I have only just recently started playing them. I do not own any of the Modern Campaigns.

[switch_back]

If you like Panzer Campaigns, I think you will love the Modern Campaigns series, there is alot to take into consideration!

Perhaps you would like a forum on Panzer Campaigns NORAD? the two could essentially be combined into one, making the forum more active overall ;)

I'm perfectly happy to track down some links to new scenarios and add ons, I have already found one for Modern Campaigns, if that would help this idea?

[RedMike]

Hey I play 'em religiously. I have all the Modern Campaigns and most of the PzC's too. EA'42 is imho the best of the PzC stable. Modern Campaigns are all great, but NGP'85 is probably reigning champ as it's the most up to date engine. FG'85 needs to be updated to NGP standard. But like I said I think they're all great games. However, I'm fully absorbed over at the Blitz as far as having a ladder goes so I have no real need to urge the creation of a new ladder here or anywhere else for that matter. I've got games coming out of my eyeballs!

[switch_back]

Hey Redmike nice to hear you enjoy the series, I intend on getting NGP'85 in the near future and give that a whirl!

Definatley a very enjoyable series this, im not too worried about a ladder anyway, it would be nice, but a forum would do. :D

[switch_back]

Okay well I gather from the response, that no-one would like to see a forum for Modern\Panzer Campaigns. Would have been nice if more of you could given an opinion for or against, but I guess silence is an answer within itself :rolleyes:

[HercMighty]

Don't have it and therefore have no opinion. Who makes it? If it's HPS no thanks, Matrix has a few games coming out that I would rather spend my money on.

[switch_back]

John Tiller and Scott I believe worked on the series, and I have to say there is not one bug or error that I can find in the game, it runs smoothly and nothing interupts the game, its actually possible to sit there and not ever see an error occur, apart from making an illegal move :cheeky:

Despite it being a HPS series of games, this is one of their higher quality games, which provide detailed, easy and stress free wargaming, although the only problem is with the larger campaign scale scenarios you have to move and fire all of the units yourself, although you can assign some of these features to AI control, which seems to do quite well.

Herc I did only expect a response from Modern\Panzer Campaigns players so im not having a jibe, but thanks for posting ;)

[RedMike]

switch back,

If you're keen on an MC/PzC ladder check out the Blitz:

http://www.theblitz.org

Great fun to be had there! And like I said before, I'm not averse to a ladder here, great idea, but I personally am already fully committed over at the blitz. That is NOT to say this is a second rate outfit. I think Warfare HQ is great too! But you'll find all you seek over at the blitz.

OUT

[switch_back]

That might just be the answer RedMike ;)

[KG_Norad]

Well the few that are interested in playing other wfhq members (cause we're such likable chaps) can at least post their interest that way a few us could hook up for some games some time.

I will let you guys know when I pick up NGP. And if any of you are up for a PZC game let me know.

[switch_back]

Thanks NORAD, I will however have to purchase NGP first in order to play you ;)

I only have Fulda Gap at the moment :cry:

[KG_Norad]

Well when I say I will pick it up the likely time frame is going to be September - xmas unless I can find someone willing to trade me for something. :cry: I just bought PZC Sicily & El Alamein...I am waiting on the post to deliver now and with each game I purchase I have a harder time convincing my wife that I need yet ANOTHER game! :eek:

[switch_back]

Well when I say I will pick it up the likely time frame is going to be September - xmas unless I can find someone willing to trade me for something. :cry: I just bought PZC Sicily & El Alamein...I am waiting on the post to deliver now and with each game I purchase I have a harder time convincing my wife that I need yet ANOTHER game! :eek:

Silence is the best policy my friend, you no doubt have a large collection of wargames, will it be noticed if one or two were ordered on the quiet and just slipped into that collection ;) obviously there is the question of the post but im sure you are capable of sneaking that through :D

But I suppose if you value your life, might be an idea to wait

[bbriley]

Silence is the best policy my friend, you no doubt have a large collection of wargames, will it be noticed if one or two were ordered on the quiet and just slipped into that collection ;) obviously there is the question of the post but im sure you are capable of sneaking that through :D

But I suppose if you value your life, might be an idea to wait

Hi Switchback and NORAD, I must say that any married man can identify with this thread. Thank you for the good laughs.

[RedMike]

One more thing I should mention. You can order any 5 or more HPS games through Rich Hamilton at a whopping 40% discount. You can split orders with your friends, whatever, makes no difference just as long as one credit card is used (or check). You should definitely consider that next time you want an HPS game and pool together. I've done so in the past and it saves a bundle.
You have to go through Rich though.

[switch_back]

NGP is on my shopping list for sure, just not at the moment because I need to fund the on-going construstion of my new PC which is close to completion, but for now I must make do with my over-clocked 633Mhz old banger, which is doing really well handling POAII at the moment. :D

The whole Modern Campaigns series will be mine all mine :freak:

And maybe i'll dabble with Panzer Campaign Series soon!!

Also bbriley no worries for the laughs, as Mike said "were all likeable chaps" ;)

[KG_Norad]

If I could truly get 40% off I may have to make that my XMAS present. I still need 2 PZC's to complete my collection and there are 3 Modern Campaigns that interest me... well we will see.

I just received my delivery. If you like Desert Battles El Alamein looks awesome! :love: can't wait to dig in and taste that dry dusty heat!

[switch_back]

If I could truly get 40% off I may have to make that my XMAS present. I still need 2 PZC's to complete my collection and there are 3 Modern Campaigns that interest me... well we will see.

I just received my delivery. If you like Desert Battles El Alamein looks awesome! :love: can't wait to dig in and taste that dry dusty heat!

:cry: your so lucky..... :cry:

[RedMike]

EA'42 is my personal PzC favorite. And if you like that one you should definitely have T'41 with the Volcano Man mod. Good stuff!

[RedMike]

One more thing. If you're interested in the 40% off deal talk to Rich Hamilton at HPS. If you have trouble finding his email address just post here and I'll try and get if for you. And remember you can also split an order among several people just so long as only one guy pays for a given order.

RedMike OUT

[Don Maddox]

Panzer Campaigns / Modern Campaigns seems to be leading the poll about which new wargames Warfare HQ should consider supporting. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything quite yet, but it does mean I'm considering it. A lot of the final decision will probably depend on the availablity of qualified volunteers to head up such an effort.

[Don Maddox]

You guys need NGP'85 IMMEDIATELY!! In fact Korea'85 too. In fact they are ALL great games. FG'85 needs a patch to bring it up to NGP standard and fix air interdiction which is very important. Also, NGP has been expanded to include the fulda map as well giving one the entire German front to play with. So if you like FG'85 at all, you'll LOVE NGP'85.

RedMike OUT
How much better is NGP '85 over FG '85? Does it incorporate a lot of improvements to the system?

[Alexander Seil]

I don't understand the hostility towards PZC from some players...I've played TOAW for a long time and must say that while overall, TOAW engine is much more flexible, most scenario designers underutilize it and create scenarios with simplistic maps and silly house rules that can be avoided with a proper application of editor functionality. I've tried Sicily '43 and then the TOAW scenario of the same name and was simply *shocked* to see the discrepancy in map quality. Koger may be a better designer than Tiller, but many of scenarios included with TOAW (and released by independent designers later) lack crucial components in their event systems, OOBs and, especially, MAPS (a cursory glance at Sicily '43 maps in TOAW and PZC will show you what I'm talking about...in TOAW it's Rommel's dream country). TOAW is, of course, *still* the one wargame to rule them all, but only a select few user and stock scenarios can be compared to the design quality exhibited in PZC.

I tend to agree that PZC interface is clunky and uncomfortable, as is the only usable zoom level (2D standard). The AI tends to be downright awful and doesn't display much initiative, but that's what PBEM is for. I do not agree, however, that the tactical unit/map scale is somehow inappropriate. It can be uncomfortable, but it offers some interesting tactical/operational solutions that would not be possible in (most) TOAW scenarios covering the same battles

As for the comments concerning sheer unit numbers...quite frankly, some of the best TOAW scenarios have in excess of 1000+ units on the map, and it doesn't make them any less playable. It increases flexibility of the system by allowing one formation to cover more ground, for one, and to utilize right resources for right operations (which can't be done if the designer of that particular scenario decided to lump heavy artillery and railroad repair teams together into Corps HQ units...), although, really, TOAW does a better job at simulating the functions of specialist and unusual units, provided the designer doesn't leave them out of the picture for his scenario. In the end, it's not the engine but what you do with that engine. PZC's inferiority in that respect is more than compensated by excellent scenario design (although TOAW still remains my favorite overall).

[KG_Norad]

I have to admit I was dubious about PzC before I played it. I too have TOAW and I think the event editor is a really great piece of work. But I never play it. I think a lot of the stock scenarios I tried, single player sucked. I will say I have never tried it pbem, I am sure I would like it more. I like it's flexibility to game just about any era and some day I suspect I will get off of my duff and learn how to really play it.

However with all that said the games I play are PzC. I really enjoy the way it models combat. The on map results took a lot of the pain out of using the dialog boxes. The maps capture the feel of the regions they represent very well, and the oob's seem impressive. I think each game gives you a good variety & a good number of scenarios both small and monster size. The designers really do a fine job of capturing the "flavor" of the various battles they represent.

I think like all strategy games the good scenarios DO provide good replay value via pbem and I am looking forward to trying Modern Campaigns NGP.

Don, one cool thing that came out of NGP I know is the new combined scenario that extends the map to include the action from Fulda Gap 85 but since I do not own it I am not sure of other enhancements.

[Alexander Seil]

The scenario editor is TOAW's greatest strength and greatest weakness. There are only a select few user scenarios for PZC/MC, whether that is fortunate or not. As I said before, there's practically nothing of significance in the 1900-2000 period that TOAW couldn't simulate with no need for house rules (provided it is not larger than grand operational or smaller than grand tactical scale, and that its' focus is ground combat), but, really, TOAW is better judged by the quality of its individual scenarios. Some really suck and some really shine. It's not TOAW, it's what you do with it.

BTW, as for the stock scenarios...most of them can be described as solid, even though a couple aren't. Some that shine are Cuba 62 and Korea 50. On the other hand, I can't even look at Sicily 43 after playing the HPS version of the event, so if anyone can point me to a decent version of that battle for TOAW, I would be grateful.

[Don Maddox]

I don't understand the hostility towards PZC from some players...Well, I've watched this debate for a number of years and I think know where it comes from: the PzC marketing scheme. There are a whole lot of wargamers out there that feel as if each PzC release is more or less a "glorified scenario." I think that's a tad harsh, but I also think the current marketing scheme is geared toward giving the developers what they want more than the players. Why do I say that? Because time and again, wargamers have shown that what they want above almost anything else is a wargame "system," not a niche wargame. The niche wargames almost never become really popular and are generally not accepted by the wargame community as a whole.

In the case of PzC, it is painfully clear with each release that the engine is the same engine with some enhancements tagged on. I personally would not object to this approach if each release were an add-on disk instead of a stand alone game. The current method makes finding opponents that have the exact same title in the series 800% more difficult than it should be. It also means that owners of earlier titles often have to wait months or even years to get some of the added functionality in later releases. This decision has been made purely for the benefit of the company, not the community. I would much rather see a core PzC and MC game engine released. then subsequent releases could come in the forum of add-on disks. I believe many fans of the series would indeed by the disks as they would have professional quality scenarios and campaigns, plus some great maps. Instead, the current system seeks to limt the players options as much as possible - usually a recipe for failure. You don't make a great product by limiting the customer's choices and options; you make a great product by giving the masses as much flexibility and as many ways to enjoy your product as possible. That's why TOAW still has a massive fan base years after Talonsoft ceased to exist! Give the fans what they want and they will support you.

Now I'll be the first to stand up and cheer Tiller and his staff for their hard efforts and I truly want to see them make a ton of money off of it. But the current release method is counter-productive IMHO. Thus the "hostility" you mentioned is coming from the widespread belief that the engine has been purposely crippled in order to force fans to buy each title on an individual basis. I do not feel the slightest bit bad for saying this in public as I own them all and I feel I've earned the right (or paid for it) to complain about this aspect. :(

I truly feel that if John ever decides to merge all the titles together and finally includes the full map and scenario editor, he's going to have one hell of a wargame! That day will be a good day for the whole community.

Enough on that.

The series is very good, no doubt about it. I have my complaints about the way certain things have been implemented, but overall it's a solid system.


TOAW is, of course, *still* the one wargame to rule them all, but only a select few user and stock scenarios can be compared to the design quality exhibited in PZC.
Fair enough, but consider this: how many of these "select" scenarios are there for TOAW? Fifteen, maybe twenty? And how many PzC titles are there? See where I'm going? You only have to pay for TOAW once. You also get the side benefit of being able to model your own scenarios in great detail with almost unlimited flexibility. In PzC you can't even make a simple map. Big difference there, and one that's hardly lost on wargamers.


I tend to agree that PZC interface is clunky and uncomfortable, as is the only usable zoom level (2D standard).
You hit it right on the head; all the views are useless except the standard 2D (well, I use the zoomed out 2D once in a while). In contrast, the 3D views in Tiller's earlier Campaign Series games, like East Front, were very good and I actually preferred these over the 2D view.

The bottom line is that it is a great series, though not a perfect one. My personal opinion is that we should support it, but I will go with the majority on this issue. Of course, no one has stepped forward to volunteer to run the section either. Unless I get a few qualified staff for this, it's a moot point.

[Alexander Seil]

The price issue is a tricky one...on one hand, it is indeed the same engine (although it is admittedly adaptable for the scale it handles) + new scenarios and they cost the same price, but that income helps Tiller stay afloat and put out good wargames (besides the zooming issue, most importantly)at a very good rate.

As for wargame systems, the closest one coming is Battlefields, but it is unlikely to defeat TOAW in anything but grand tactical WW2 combat (since that's the only thing it handles). I'm afraid that TOAW's (continuing) success with the wargaming public isn't likely to make any developer want to challenge it. After all, this is THE standard in operational wargame systems - anything that comes out is bound to be compared to it and most likely found lacking. Show me a developer who would willingly put himself in the line of fire...

[switch_back]

I just find with this series of games, the pressure in completing a scenario\campaign is immense, rotating units to keep them battle worthy, fighting stalling battles, rushing in cavalry to the flanks, it really is all fantastic stuff. Even down to taking advantage of elevation.

I wish I could lead the section myself, but I never have the time to do so, im mainly logged into WFHQ when Im at work, so it just becomes a bit difficult thats all.

I hope this forum gets put in place, it would be great to share some tactics and scenario talk. :D

Whatever the decision, WFHQ is my wargaming home ;)

[Don Maddox]

As for the comments concerning sheer unit numbers...quite frankly, some of the best TOAW scenarios have in excess of 1000+ units on the map, and it doesn't make them any less playable. It increases flexibility of the system by allowing one formation to cover more ground. . .I don't think this is an accurate comparrison for several reasons. TOAW handles combat resolution much differently than PzC does. In TOAW, one simply gives orders to the desired units and they are all simultaneously executed when you advance the turn. True, a really successful turn can yield more then one such "phase" within a turn, but it's still 60% less work than a PzC game with a similar number of units on-map.

In PzC, one has to give an order to a unit and then wait while five or six different enemy units respond. In even mid-sized scenarios this is a very long, drawn out process than can take upwards of an hour per turn. In the campaign games it can take significantly more time. Only the truly gigantic TOAW scenarios take this long to manage as this system requires a lot less clicks to manage the battle.

Now I'm not advocating a TOAW-like turn resolution for PzC. I think the current system is fine for the scale. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if there were more mid-small sized scenarios available. This would also help stimulate more PBEM activty.

[Old&Slow]

Well here is the problem with the PZC Games and no doubt the new Gettysburg Game.

You MUST move each unit individually. :crosseye: The move all unit feature in the old ( but IMO far better ) Tiller 16 bit games is missing.


Since is all the Games the OB comprises perhaps 75 to 150+ units and since they mostly start on the right map edge of a Huge Map and move left there is an _enormous_ amount of mouse clicking going on...far more then I want to do anymore.

I once calculated that in the Fulda Gap Campaign Game just to move all the Russian units to contact with the US units in the center of the Map required about 10,000 mouse click :surprise: at a hour a turn, and that`s just moving them, not targeting and firing. To move them to the major victory hexs on the left map edge would require in excess of 100,000+ mouse clicks ... No Thanks for me.

Oh..and other then the first PZC Game, the AI is as dumb as wood.

[Redwolf]

Not that I "hate" the PzC games, but just to iterate over the point that the OOBs and maps are so much better:

The OOB in PzC Normandy'44 was pretty off, including a number of German vehicles being present in greater number than they ever built. I was very unimpressed reading through the OOB (which, thankfully, you can do in first place).

The reason I don't play them is that I think the combat system is not realistic at the level of PzC, and that I felt it was wasting my time with ridiculous dialog boxes. It would be bad enough to have the dialog boxes all over the place on a high frequency as such. But it really drove me over the edge that some of them are so small that they had to use scrollbars to display all the info, although the screen would be big enough to display the info without scrollbar. Needless to say, they are not resizable, so although the screen space is there you don't only have to get rid of a gazillion of boxes (which thankfully you can do with the keyboard), you are even forced to use the scrollbar, for which no keyboard shortcut exists.

But as I said, that's why I don't play them, I don't hate them.

The point about ToaW scenarios being worse than PzC one I cannot support, though.

[switch_back]

Its nice to see that you didnt knock the series as a whole Redwolf.

I understand that dialogue boxes and toolbars are really an aquired taste, you either like it or you dont, I can see where your coming from.

I mean it doesnt irritate me in the slightest I just feel more informed, and being that I have spent a large amount of time with the Modern Campaigns series I have gotten used to all the quirks, but I suppose everyone has their own preferences on how they like their game to play. ;)

[Redwolf]

[...] I have spent a large amount of time with the Modern Campaigns series[...]

Well, I believe *that* :D

Sorry, couldn't resist a lame joke.

If they would have avoided that scrollbar mess I might have coped, but for now it's an example of unneccessary amounts of time spent and hence not comptibale with my real life.

[switch_back]

Lame but to the point ;)

I do agree with you that there is a human time factor involved :D

[mr_clark]

Just a short (and late?!?) question:

Is it possible to get these games also from another place but the webshop? And possibly cheaper?

I would really like to try into these sims, but unfortunately they're quite expensive... :(

[Cougar_DK]

Just a short (and late?!?) question:

Is it possible to get these games also from another place but the webshop? And possibly cheaper?

I would really like to try into these sims, but unfortunately they're quite expensive... :(

Hi Mr. Clark, take a look here at Duchet (http://www.duchet.com/). All PzC and modern is £29,99.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

dunno - I worked on the Squad Battles series and the interface sort of burnt me out (that and no map editor...) after a while. I still enjoy playing the games, but not really my cuppa.

that being said, ME67 Jihad 2004 scn is my single most favourite wargaming moment ever - not realistic, but fun :D

[switch_back]

dunno - I worked on the Squad Battles series and the interface sort of burnt me out (that and no map editor...) after a while. I still enjoy playing the games, but not really my cuppa.

that being said, ME67 Jihad 2004 scn is my single most favourite wargaming moment ever - not realistic, but fun :D

ME67 is on wishlist for future purchases ive heard elsewhere that the Jihad scenario is pretty cool :D

[Ivan Rapkinov]

to be honest, the core game itself is not that exciting, and is very one sided against the AI, and even a human opponent.

if your only planning on getting it for the one scn, I'd advise against it :)

the OPtG scsn are pretty cool too though ;)

[switch_back]

and for me to be honest I just want every Modern Campaigns game there is :D

But thanks for the heads up

[Alexander Seil]

I suppose it might have something to do with the fact that the military situation in the Palestine and surrounding region was somewhat...one-sided for the last 50 years or so ;)

[RedMike]

Old & Slow...actually there is an AI move feature in PzC/MC whereby you can tell a formation to move as a whole. But you must be careful how you use it. Best for moving up reinforcements.

Ivan...weren't you working on the Chechnya SqB mod? What ever happened to that? Personally SqB has grown to be one of my all time favorite games, particularly the Africa at War mod. A sound and graphics facelift is a must though. Really improves the atmosphere.

The story I've heard is that Tiller got screwed by TalonSoft over the map editor issue so now he retains the rights to it, period. Don't know, just what I've heard.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

RedMike: it got nixed when we did Korea - I was using the Turks as the Chechens, and russians as russians. John changed the code in the existing TOD.exe which I was using to conform with the Korea.exe code, which caused all sorts of exception errors with the scns that had been created for the mod.

Then Wild Bill left the team for greener pastures and I went o/s after Korea was finished. Frank and I talked about a combined Afghan-Chechen mod, but we never really got into it.

though I must admit I was a bit shocked when AotR was released, given that I and a couple of others had been onboard since the start, and John didn't even tell us he was working on a Stalingrad game, including Wild Bill, who, whether you liked or loathed him, was responsible for a lot of great scns, in a whole lot of games. Why John chose to do it solo (with Joe and Marks help ofc) is a mystery to me when the "SB Raiders" as Louie had termed us were going so well as a team...but it;s his system, his money - his call :)

as for the map editor...that contentious as hell. you CAN make your own maps, and despite being finicky, they work the same as any other map. However, John got really tchy about people using them - which I was fine with on a customer side of things, but we were on his development team and we didn;t have access to the map tool - maybe wild Bill, but I think he still sent his topo scans to Joe and John. which made for some embarassing situations - like the Nijmagen scn in Eagles Strike that was never included, because the map made was for the wrong area...

SB:Korea was fun to make, but everyone sort of dropped in an out during that one - Ozgar and Frank proved to be worthy additions, and I'm happy they've kept it up :) By the time Korea rolled around I was frustrated with not being able to my own thing basically, which probably was a bit selfish, but I got onboard the Squad Battles series because it was dealing with post-WW2 games (Vietnam, Korea etc) , and when it seemed like it was just going to keep churning out WW2 games, I lost interest, then RL interfered, with me going to Chechnya, I got engaged, I got a full time non-student related job which I enjoyed, but ate up a lot of time.

never got back into it when I got back form overseas, and then I got more into the more complex milsims keeping in with my studies, and work related interests.

as for the map editor - that was a financial decision by John: give 'em all the tools they want to expand the games (OOB editors, DB editors, scn Editors) but make them dependant on the source for maps. I can't say I agreed with it, but I lived with it since SBV (the good ol days of Scott Clinton, Matt Peckham and myself...sigh) and with every new member that joined the development team, the question was asked and the same answer given. I respect John's opinion on the issue, and as I said before - his series, his money - his call.

just perusing my outlook mailboxes...the SqB one has over 6000+ mails - I still wonder how I got through uni! :D

[RedMike]

So you and "James Rapkins" must be one and the same?

I too (among the multitudes) find the lack of a proper map editor as the single most frustrating thing about designing SqB scenarios. It always boils down to finding appropriate terrain that never is quite right. Still, you ought to try Africa at War if you haven't already. Best SqB imho! I'm working, slowly, on some Portuguese scenarios at the moment. Very hard to find material on the subject. At least in English it is. Plenty of stuff in print in Portuguese. Anyway, it's a lot of fun and SqB does reward the proper implemention of squad level tactics. BTW...Frank drafted me into TF-E4 as well. :)

RedMike OUT

[Ivan Rapkinov]

yah - I am he. (check my profile to be sure)

though I was Ivan here a long time before I was involved in SB. Check out the interview I did with John Tiller re: SB:Vietnam... :D

TF-E4 does good stuff, I'm glad they've kept it up and kept the interest :) I've played Africa@War (which is mighty fine) but my focus is on milsims more these days, though I'm glad I had as much to do with SB as I did, as it was an awesome experience in learning about wargaming.

[splooger]

The "perfect" wargame for me would have Koger's interface, the Tiller team's scenario research, and SSG's AI.

[Don Maddox]

In the light of the feedback we have received and my own experience with the system, we are prepared to accept Panzer/Modern campaigns into the Warfare HQ family of wargames. As always, we won't do this half-as*ed.

Volunteers instered in being part of the staff should contact me directly for more information. Here are the requirements:

Have gaming experience with the system and a passion to work with it long term.
Free time.
Some webpage experience is helpful but not an absolute must.
Willingness to work as part of a team.
This is, of course, a volunteer position like all our other positions. You won't be paid for your efforts, however, being part of our staff is a rewarding experience on many levels.

I'm looking for one section leader and one assistant section leader.

[Cougar_DK]

Thanx Don.

[switch_back]

woooo woooo :banana:

[KG_Norad]

Ok guys you got your wish...almost...We will need some volunteer's to make this a reality! I would but I got involved with CM while PzC was still considered implausable and my good friend Palantir needs to have an eye kept on him. :drink: ;)

So who is going to step up to the plate? If someone comes aboard I would be happy to be a "buddy" until you get up to speed.

[dannybou]

Ok guys you got your wish...almost...We will need some volunteer's to make this a reality! I would but I got involved with CM while PzC was still considered implausable and my good friend Palantir needs to have an eye kept on him. :drink: ;)

So who is going to step up to the plate? If someone comes aboard I would be happy to be a "buddy" until you get up to speed.
Been playing these games for a few years. Panzer Campaign that is. Wrote a review at ACG on El Alamein. I have no experience with web pages. My area is WW2. I can volunteer.

After thinking about it, I think I'll let the volunteering to those who have been members of WHQ far longer than me.

[Don Maddox]

Wow, maybe not then . . . :rolleyes:

[Realmzmaster]

I am looking at purchasing ME67. I need to know how is compares with Divided Ground by Talonsoft. Can anyone give me a comparison overview.

[Glenn Saunders]

> I am looking at purchasing ME67. I need to know how is compares with Divided Ground by Talonsoft.

Here is the link your looking for.

http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/ME67vsDG.html

...I was just looking over this forum and threan since I thought there might be more traffic here now that ACG was directing the traffic here. But is seems like the largely TOAW fan club has stronger feeling about the value of PzC and MC - at least they did in the earlier part of this thread. This would really be too bad but there you have it.

Glenn

[dannybou]

I am looking at purchasing ME67. I need to know how is compares with Divided Ground by Talonsoft. Can anyone give me a comparison overview.
I own it and it is good. Just make sure if you get it to download the alternate art packs and extra scenarios.

[dannybou]

Back to the top for our new members to vote in.

[Mini-Me]

I tried Fulda Gap '85. I agree with Don; essentially unplayable.

I don't think anybody will accuse me of shying away from fine details. But that game was out of control. I played the intro scenario with 11ACR, and thought to myself that there seemed to be an awful lot of "chits" on the map for a small battalion-sized engagement. Then I looked at the "grand" scenario.

Are they freaking kidding me? I have to plot paths and actions for every single battalion and no small number of companies in three Warsaw Pact armies or three NATO corps? And do it again every 4 scale hours? And keep track of logistics and fire support down to the level of individual sorties?

I don't think so. Not without a staff.

It reminded me of the "Europa" series that modeled all of WWII at the battalion level. That game (actually, about two dozen of them) was huge, too, but there was one crucial difference: you can see the whole map in one sweeping glance and "grok" the overall situation easily. FG85 had two zoom levels, neither of which was ideal. This sort of situational awareness is one area that computer wargames have consistently failed to even reach parity with, much less improve on PnP games.

There was no large-unit integrity; battalions from entirely different divisions just sort of mushed together with no particular organization, and no good way to view the situation at, say, the division level rather than the battalion level.

I also found the FG85 combat resolution model to be incredibly stingy. I find it hard to believe that a defending company of M1 tanks can engage an advancing Soviet battalion of BTRs for an hour and only destroy a handful. That's certainly not what happens in ATF, for example.

Maybe the engine works for WWII campaigns. IMO it didn't work well at all for FG85.

--- Kevin

This quote is from a year or so ago, but I wanted to give my 0.02. The CG's are VERY playable. Right now I am in the middle of a PBEM for the Germany '85 CG - the one that combines Fulda and NGP. I'm playing as the WP, so at the moment I have a lot more to do than my opponent. In spite of that, it's not that hard to keep everything together.

As for the M1 company not being able to decimate the Soviet motorized infantry...I've had a couple entrenched companies of Leopard II's decimate several battalions of my motorized infantry and T-55s. Got my &*^ handed to me. You can always slide the advantage in favor of the NATO forces. To approximate what would happen in the real world between BTR's and M1's , you would probably have to do that. That would destroy the balance of the scenario though.

There is a good way to view the divisional organization. You have to turn 'highlight unit org' on. Makes it easier to keep units within the command radius of their parent HQ.

[Paulinski]

I have been playing Panzer/Modern Campaigns for a while now and own most of the titles with intent of purchasing them all.
Like stated above the game just like any other game has its shortcomings and benefits. Overall I had a many of enjoyable hours playing the games.
Nuff said
Paul