HPS Modern Campaigns

[KG_Norad]

PZR Campaign or Korsun Pocket?

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.

 

[Dr Zaius]

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]

Thoughts on Modern Campaigns?

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?

 

[Dr Zaius]

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

 

[Dr Zaius]

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

 

[Dr Zaius]

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

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

 

[Dr Zaius]

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??

 

[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?