Panzer Cmdr

I second that Panzer39, to do a true World War 2 strategy game we need the whole world (and good looking/more varied counters to got to war on it). Hopefully Hubert does not think he gets to have the holidays off, everyone else have a Merry Christams / Happy Holidays. Ok, Hubert you too...

Hey Old Man, only one more thing : the bomber has longer range and better spotting range too. Currently though the "Fighter" unit is better all around and for the cost. I like the idea about limiting the fighters ability to conduct ground attacks. SC2 would be good to address this and perhaps create a new "dive bomer / ground attack" aircraft with good ground attack abilities and limited air-to-air abilities.

Great Work! I hope that SC2 can do half as good a job with there new graphics. One thing, would it be possible to have the smudge like effect on Russian square to be white on the red? This would give the frozen look to those Russian battlefields. Only other thing is an option set of icons that are 'simple' black silhouettes, like those found in spotter books. I do like the colors you have though. What if the corps units were represented as mounted units since they move further. Either a half track unit or horses depending on tech... Whatever you do I am sure I will upgrade to it, especially at your rock bottom prices...

Hi there Psyronin, I will try to shed some light on your questions (for more thoughts you can search the forum using keywords) 1) Supply effects how troops fight and how much they move. If you land a troop via transport the first turn it has supply, then after that it will have no supply unless you get a HQ over with it. Units without supply attack poorly and can take massive casualties. I believe it was stated that HQ's have a max range of 5 land hexes. So a German HQ is Amsterdam can not supply a german infantry even in Southern England, you need to land one in England. 2) HQ's provide supply and rediness, they are very important as stated above for supply but also your units fight better with HQ support. This is very evident in air to air with Britian and Germany. 3) Resources, including ports have numbers. If damaged by bombing they will not be able to produce new units unit they repair themselves. Plus you lose MPP's for the damage, if your oppenent gets higher tech bombers he/she will do more damage and will be less likely to take damage. 4) Strategic Bombing is using a bomber to attack a resource. Fighters can too and some players do this to get experience for their air units although at first it seems silly to do a point of damage and loss 1 aircraft. As they air units gain experience they will do more damage and are less likely to take losses. Also it specifically limits the resource for producing (and perhaps repairing not real sure on that for ships in a damaged port). 5) Different colored hexes show your influence/control. If you blitz into russia alone hexes behind you may turn back to red, thus you lose supply and therefore effectiveness, mobility and are less likely if at all possible to reinforce said unit. Hope these help, more info. can be found through searching forum but I realize that can take a lot of time. The fully patched game is much better that the demo as the developers have addressed many bugs and gamers complaints. Good luck!

I too am thinking about getting a copy of HOI but am not willing to pay the initial cost of $49.99 US as I have seen it advertized. I bought EU1 for $2.99 and I liked it (probally because it was so cheap). Then I went and bought EU2 for $29.99 and was not so thrilled. I am not a fan of real time but I think it said the game could be paused or slowed to simulate turn play - yes it could but that was still not the same. I will get it though (when it comes down in cost) for the grand world play and to try some bizarre games of conquering the world with the fanatical warriors of Easter Island. Hopefully though Hubert will get back from his Sabbitical and get into SC2 with newly foung vigor to provide us with the turn-based grand strategy game (with options on micromanagement of resources, weather, linked techs, air power, island combat, more units, timed builds, stacking,etc. etc.) that we desire and would willing pay $49.99 for.

Way to go Repuplicans! Let's hope they can spark the economy here in the U.S. and across the globe

Also I have read a good tactic is to attack the port with a veteran german air unit. This will cause the Malta Fighter to intercept and incur losses (pretty high losses if you have an HQ and have tech and veteran advantages). Follow up with direct attacks of the weakened air unit to eliminate it.

Yes, I think that was a good review, short and simple. I do believe the graphics and sound could be improved. Some of the 'mods' created by gamers here are cool but I would hope that Hubert will develop their own graphics representing actual tech. advances. (ie. From ME109 to FW190 to ME262). It did not mention game support in the review but it should because Hubert and his team have been there delivering quality patches and improvements. (all at no cost to players)

What's "OOTP"?

Somebody tell EB it is time for him to take his medication. :eek: If he is so anti-american and anti-english why help support capitalism by purchasing the game. If Russia was so powerful and unstopable why did they even do lend-lease with the allies? Why did Stalin scream and shout for a new front if the glorious red armies had no fear of defeat. EB must really be trying to make people angry on this furom as many of us (American/English) had relatives in the service during WW2. EB go back to political propaganda class, the internet was created by a bunch of capitalist - you're neighbors will report you to the Kremlin...

Karhu, See Below: 1. How do I assign units to HQs? Do they attach themselves, or is there some way I can choose which units the new general commands? *** Units assign themselves to HQ's, the maximum range of HQ is 5 hexes. I wish we could pick which units get assigned... 2. I can't for the life of me get the tech window to kick start. I thought perhaps this was disabled for the demo, but I saw in one post here that someone seems to have invested in tech in the demo too. ***I haven't played the demo for awhile but I believe it is the same as the game- a- Click on Research Box on screen b- "purchase" a chit (cost 250 MPP) c- Click on appriopriate category that you with to do the research with arrow keys d- Sit back and hope for results, the more chits you invest in an area (max 5) the better the chance of getting technology. 3. What's with isolated, cut off units replenishing themselves to full strengh each turn? *** Units in cities can get certain levels of supply, more if there is a port there too. I believe that actual game with patches toned this down some. You may be having difficulty taking a city due to your own units supply levels or lack of HQ, check your units supply and rediness and also compare experience between your units and the defender...check too their entrechment. 4. If you can move then fire, how come you can't fire then move? It makes wearing down those lone armies even more difficult. *** This is the way it is. Best way to take out city is to first hit it with Naval and Air Units to help unentrench, then attack with experienced and well supplied armies if you have them. It can help to surround city too. Remember when you get the full game be sure to patch up to the latest revision, Hubert has been good with patches!

Perhaps for game purposes it would be best if units "in the front lines" could not receive replacements. To receive replacements perhaps the requirement would be that a enemy unit must not be adjacent. This would require units to be "pulled back" to recieve replacements. In this manner units that are surrounded could not receive inforcements, but perhaps them "resting" could improve the units rediness. P.S. I still think aircraft should have to operate from airbases...

Zeres, I found these on the internet, http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/products.html These are game by John Tiller that look pretty good. I have not played any of these yet- the games are quite expensive and I do not believe they are grand strategy. I like the ability to control production and declare war. It can be a little boring just playing out a specified engagement (Like Battle of the Bulge, Korsun etc.) as there are set units predetermined. I like games like this that Hubert made on the grand level. It would be nice to have a bit more flexibilty and I like that Hubert and company have been making patches and listing to player suggestions.

Perhaps the Scorched Earth Policy could be a command. Then an Army, Corps or Armor can spend 1 turn to destroy the Industry/Resource. This makes it possible say to capture a city and "raze" it, perhaps knowing that you can not afford to stay there and defend it. Ports would have to be "scorched" from the appropriate land control hex.

***Warning Long-winded post*** I accidentally started a new link when I was going to reply to another, so I thought what could I discuss? I neat idea would be to have more specialized units. Some new units could be: 1) Mechanized Infantry - travel as far as tanks, do better in combat in open (non-mountain, non-hill, and not allowed to enter swamps). 2) Paratroops (everyone's favorite) can transport over enemy territories (or load into cargo planes; see below), less capable vs. tanks, limited supply (land at full, then more slowly become unsupplied each turn (to account for them landing with extra supplies because they will automatically be out of supply). 3) Mountain Troops (can fight better and travel further in mountains) 4) Commandoes (same as paratroops, plus ability to destroy/damage industry/resources). 5) Armor recon (perhaps a corps sized armor unit, can go a little further than tank unit but has less firepower but better recon) 6) Attack Bomber and Fighter (split the Airfleet unit into two new units, Attack good vs ground but does not intercept; Fighter intercepts, can't attack ground units but can attack aircraft units) 7) Spy/Saboteur - (unit can only be "seen" by another spy, used to infiltrate enemy and act as eyes behind lines, ability to damage industry and resources though this tends to clue opponent into the location of your spy-limit available spies and perhaps give them cool names like James Bond). If discovered, they are caught and imprisoned or killed or made to become double agents (this would be a random 40/40/20 chance). 8) Marine - Can directly attack land from the transport, take fewer casualties when landing on "undefended" zones. 9) Mobile HQ's - These HQ's can keep up with the Tanks, Armor Recon, and Mech. Inf units. 10) Naval Aircraft - Same as above mentioned aircraft but the bombers and attack are great vs ships. The navy attack and fighter could land on carriers and cost a little more than normal. To pay for the tailhooks. 11) For more specialized aircraft: a) Cargo plane- carries paratroops or supplies for airdrop. Gliders - carry glider infantry/supplies c) Photo Recon - Good recon, very suseptable to enemy fighters. d) Seaplanes - Can land on sea hexes, good at attacking and spotting subs. Perhaps able to provide supply to other vessels. 12)Ships: a) Supply ship/Ammo ship - used to supply other ships or troops on coast. Troop Ship /transport - land units need these to cross seas, not just automatically having ships at a click of the operate command. 13) Refuges - this could be a controversial unit. Allowed to block/hinder movements (units can pass them but impact could cut movement of unit for turn in half). If attacked, automatically retreat and big negative impact to attacker - perhaps in the form of negative MPP's or loss in troop moral. 14) Engineer/Pioneers - Able to build defense, better at attacking defenses. 15) Anti-Air Gun Defenses - can defend vs air in hex plus immediatly surrounding hexes. 16) Rail Guns - Those big rail car guns, must operationally move and have long range (2 hexes). Can't move in forest, mountains, swamps. 17) Artillary/Mobile Artillary/Mobile Anti-air - I know that artillary is supposed to be thought of as part of current infantry units but...if we could have artillary (need to be able to stack limited number of units) it would be great. Then those land units could hit back at ships and being stacked with anti-air units could deter some air attacks. More thought of units. This would definety have to tweak game engine to design new specs. of each unit. All would increase what variables go into attacking, defending, movement, detection etc. This post was just throwing some stuff out for possible SC2. It may not be merited at current hex/unit size and it may require stacking ability in hexes. The above would also tend to increase technology areas but many may desire a more in-depth tech tree. Perhaps a generic pattern can be found thus if a General wanted to deploy his new division of Mountain Commando Paratroops. It would cost ( 150 MPP for regualar Inf. Unit, +10 MPP for Mountain Skills, +20 MPP for Commando Ability, +10 for Airjump boots - it could be made that some things cancel others, like if you pick Mountain Skills they then could not be Mechanized Units.) If you read all this thanks, if you saw something that you suggested earlier (don't be offended it is hard to read all 15,000 post), if you strongly disagree with this due to histrorical or ethical reasons (these are only thoughts for a game, trying to make things fun/flexible).

You are right. It is just the way things are for now. Those capitalist always up to their tricks! Really I haven't played the Allies lately to notice this - do you have the latest and greatest patch? It can make you not want to fully liberate France because then your troops got to cross the big pond, and they get all sea sick and stuff...

Does anyone know if having units in forest, mountains or cities lessens the chance of detection with FOW on? :confused: It should. Entrenchment and Experience should also play a role in reducing detection. I don't think aircraft should automatically spot units especially those dug-in. :eek: Perhaps too the aircrafts ability to spot should be a function of experience and tech. Now it seems it is only a function of range. Perhaps aircraft should only be able to (have a chance) at detecting units that are in hexes around target hex. (assuming the aircraft stay at some higher altitude prior to target and then came down for the kill, heavy bombers just stay high) Even when attacking say a forest hex with a bomber there may be a chance that the bomber does cause casualties but the unit still may not expose itself if it very experienced. Thoughts... Remeber those Panzer hidden in the woods in "A Bridge To Far", all the British guy saw was trees - except for the real zoomed in shot, then he said "I wouldn't worry about them, they probably don't work" (or something along those lines... )

Welcome Aboard Reepicheep. I agree about the tweaks. I especially like the AERODROMES. That sound much cooler than airfields! I too think that aircraft should only operate out of them, and not be able to land on top of mountains or dense forest. (except those German gyro-copter attack squadrons) I agree that in a future SC there should be more emphasis on resources. The upgrades too should not be automatic, but player should make it an action (that possibly cost a little). This would work well to then allow the thought of Technology Capturing. {see the past link on that if interested} Hubert has a fine game here and there does seem like a lot of possibilities.

Has this topic been braoched? What if the game allowed a chance of capturing technology either by conquering a city or destroying a higher tech unit. What if those pesky British commandoes take out that V2 site in occupied France there could be a chance that they get their hands on the blueprints and hand them over to old Monty. Aircraft units should not be allowed to 'steal technology' but perhaps if airunits take damage over land there is a chance that the bomber with that new bomb site landed in Rommels own garden! This would definetly futher reduce technology advances. It would be more risky to know that you spent all that time/money on you research and it could be stolen by the enemy. This idea would be best if units were not automatically upgraded. Thus a commander may not upgrade those Panzers in Africa as there is a high chance that they could get 'defeated/captured' and their technology looted by those Desert Rats.

Bill, instead of not allowing builds in conquered cities I would much rather see time-length builds. So you can't just build in 1 turn an aircraft carrier in France. If there is no way to model time-length builds then perhaps the ability of only being able to build in the home country would help.

How about "Free Italians" and "Free Germans"? What if ALL units had the ability to fight on (asuming that a friendly major power still exist)? It should be a % chance, perhaps based on experiance and strength. Maybe a 1 strength corps that is green may just decide to hang it up, but the full stregth elite unit may just be fanatical...

Hey that's cool John :cool: I don't like threads were people get into bashing oneanother. I am glad we see eye to eye on topics, now if only that Hubert guy would just get to work! Just kiddin' H.C. - hope you have a great weekend as well as the rest of you fellow junkies. ATTACK...ATTACK...ATTACK

Hey I pity DiFool :eek: that acuses me of stealing. You should be glad that I and others may support similar views. I have mentioned this idea in post from the distant past, and I am sure someone probally did before than (or this idea may be done in other games). Don't think YOU truly are the first person in the universe of wargamers to have the idea. You had better get your ideas copywritted so that Hubert can get you your 2 cents. -If you were only kidding than ignore this post. If you were serious, like I said, I pity Difool.

I am glad you are considering the idea on allowing neutral majors the ability to do "limited" research, production and movements. Though I believe you may need to adjust starting forces. It may be bad too if they then (speaking mainly of Russia) still were allowed to entrench each turn. This would makes all red units easily fully entrenched in time for Barbara Striesand, I mean Barbarossa. A thought came to mind. (it may not be new to forum) but what if we assigned an MPP cost for actions of units (these would be logistic cost in nature). 1) Cost to entrench (cost perhaps corps 1MPP, Army 2, Tank 3) each turn to entrench to their max allowed by terrain. This would be their action for their turn, when max is reached it would cost to maintain. Thus an Army spends 4 turns and 8MPP's to entrench to 4. If they don't take action/spend MPP's to maintain entrenchment they decrease each turn back down a level. This would hinder the defender. 2) To hinder the attacker, make it cost MPP's to move units. Perhaps similar method or even better base it on a % value of the unit. So it may cost less to rebase the strength level 2 airwing than it does for that massive 15 strength hi-tech airwing. *** These methods would help control forces growing to rediculous levels. Wow look at that German Player with 15 Airwings, too bad he only has enough "supply" to attack with 1 of them! - Also believe that to limit effects of Techs there should be a upgrade cost to existing units, possibly only available when at a major controlled city. This would definetly slow research. Wow I got level 5 jets, but I didn't save any money to retrofit my aircraft-boys fly back to Berlin, get some R&R and we will upgrade those FW190's to ME262's!

I think your approach makes good sense. Looking at the post I can see how you are getting pulled in many directions and it is good to finish one thing at a time. The weather effects idea sounds great and allowing items to be optional effects will please both sides of the house. Other "Airpower" options that came to mind where: 1) creat a new "attack" aircraft unit. (we would have bombers-for strategic targets, fighters for air-to-air, and attack aircraft for air-to-ground) a: Bombers would take more damage if attacked by fighters, attack aircraft would have a slightly better air-to-air defence but they could not intercept) b: Bombers and fighters could be coded to be unable to attack ground units. Bombers only being able to attack resources and fighters only other aircraft (strafing the runways). This would eliminate idea of corps inflicting damage on bombers 50,000 feet up or damage done to the corps by bombs dropped from high altitudes. This would make the units less versatile and attractive. -not sure how you could treat carrier, perhaps allow them to perform intercept and have ability to attack ships. Thus fighters should be allowed to do ship attacks. 2)If land units do get close enough to attack an air unit the result should be either instant elimination of air units or some damage and rest captured. 3)The above should eliminate the idea of quick experience points by attacking land units (as bombers/fighers could not attack them, attack aircraft could but at greater risk of losses from fighters). Spitfires had a field day with Stukas that had no fighter escorts. 4)Allow Tech Advance in Anti-Aircraft/Anti-Ship that benefites land units (army/corps/tanks) vs aircraft and ships. It always bugged me that ships never have a chance of taking damage from army units (that could have long range artillery) and this becomes a quick gamey way to get 4-star battleships with no risk of losses. And to compensate fleets and further reduce airpower by allowing much better results of battleships attacking planes (but not automatic kills like a land unit, and allow attack aircraft better odds when attacking fleets) 4)Could it be possible to reduce the effect/ability of aircraft automatically revealing more and more units with each range increase? I could see perhaps noting the ability to see locations of aircraft but perhaps not to see all land units or even ships automatically. Land units would tend to do the camo thing and subs may dive if the heard the roar of an airwing :eek: - Keep up the great work H.C. We will do our best to remain patient and do realize that you can not possibly please everyone!