Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

John Tiller's Campaign Series exemplifies tactical war-gaming at its finest by bringing you the entire collection of TalonSoft's award-winning campaign series. Containing TalonSoft's West Front, East Front, and Rising Sun platoon-level combat series, as well as all of the official add-ons and expansion packs, the Matrix Edition allows players to dictate the events of World War II from the tumultuous beginning to its climatic conclusion. We are working together with original programmer John Tiller to bring you this updated edition.

Moderators: Jason Petho, Peter Fisla, asiaticus, dogovich

Post Reply
User avatar
LoneWulf63
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Columbia, South Carolina

Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by LoneWulf63 »

Hey all.

What I am trying to do is to design these Panzer Grenadier scenarios for use with JTCS as closely as I can. The maps gave me some problems but those have been resolved. The orgs are, for lack of a better word, a bitch to do (please don't ban me). As for the actual scenarios, I have done a couple but they need to be revamped. I am hoping to have the first set of the 1940:The Fall of France scenarios (18 scenarios) finished by July 5th. The first part of the following week will be crap. I am having five teeth pulled on Monday, July 8th and I am sure that JTCS will be the furthest thought in my two-cell brain-pan. I am hoping to begin work on some of the Japanese vs. Allies by the middle of that week but it all depends on how I feel. I have also been asked to do some Finnish/Lapland battles, which I might do as a break from the other scenarios. Remember, I have over 1000 scenarios to choose from. It is just a matter of choosing the ones that people will want to play.

There some aspects of the Panzer Grenadier games that I can't duplicate into JTCS format (at least I haven't figured them out yet).
1)In the PG games, each side has an "Initiative" rating. At the beginning of each turn, both players roll a six sided die and add their initiative rating to it. Whoever has the higher number, moves/fires first. A player's units can also lose initiative rating points as their units take casualties. There is more to initiative but that is the basic idea.

2)In almost all scenarios the artillery assets are off-board. In several scenarios some of these assets are available on a later turn or are not available after a certain turn. There is probably a way to reflect this in JTCS but I haven't figured out how to do it quite yet. For now, if a side has off-board artillery then it is available to that side for the entire length of the scenario. The same holds true for air support. If you can get it in the PG scenarios, even if there are restrictions, you get it in the JTCS conversions without restrictions.

3)Units. In the PG game system, each unit has only two-steps (strength points) per unit. Now I could at some point modify the oobs to reflect this but I am not sure I want to so for one simple reason. I feel that if I did this, it would take too much away from the flavor of JTCS. I will also be designing new, converting, or porting over units for each game title, if necessary. Some of these units have already been finished but will not be available with the first Fall of France scenario set. In Panzer Grenadier, you also have armored leaders. It would be easy do design such units but for the moment I will hold-off on that project until a later time.

The two most important aspects of doing these conversion scenarios is to keep these scenarios based in the JTCS game system, not the Panzer Grenadier game system. I also want them to be scenarios that all of you will want to play and share with others.

Chris.
In loving memory of my wife, Rebecca. 5/2/52 to 7/13/2014. I miss you sweetheart.
User avatar
Crossroads
Posts: 17498
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:57 am

RE: Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by Crossroads »

Hello Chris,

I'd be thrilled to see some Finnish battles from these series :)

As for your questions:

1. Initiative. JTCS does not have anything like that. The best you can do is to figure out which side to start, and consequently - especially if there are valuable objective hexes - which side gets the last turn. Last turn might give an advantage, as a player can go all-out on the very last turn of the game, without fear for being punished for coming into open.

2. Artillery assets / turn limits. Again, we are out of luck. The best you can again do imho is to consider the overall amount of tubes, and if they are intended for a limited time only then perhaps tone them down in numbers. Artillery is deadly in JTCS, given it can fire almost non-stop from the beginning to the end.

3. Units / Balance. Here we are out of luck again. Early war units are somewhat equal in victory points, so casualties would balance themselves out more or less. Mid-to-late war scenarios see Axis units German especially being more valuable, which make balancing a scenario a bitch (I don't think we'll be banned lol). Late war scenarios try like giving Germans a 4:3 (3:2?) handicap in victory points, ie. if both sides lose say one third of their force mix, allow Germans to lose 4:3 ratio of ponts more. It is an unfortunate situation indeed for a scenario designer. The other thing you can do is to make objectives really valuable, or valuable enough, so capturing or losing them would determine the outcome.

My 0.02, obviously. Perhaps others can chip in too.

Question: you've added new units to WF. Have you thought about packaging your PG mod yet?

If you are familiar with JSGME it is what I've used in packaging my EF changes. You could use the same structure, as there at least some JTCS players already familiar with it. put the MODS folder into JTCS root, so you could basically use the same layout for your WF mods. And if you require any changes to EF side of things, we can always include them in the EF Forgotten Battles install, so folks would not need to keep changing their system.
Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
---
CS: Vietnam 1948-1967 < Available now
CS: Middle East 1948-1985 2.0 < 3.0 In the works
User avatar
LoneWulf63
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Columbia, South Carolina

RE: Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by LoneWulf63 »

Crossroads. These weren't questions but rather what can't (as you pointed out) be done. Don't get me wrong. I relish you input on what I am doing and I thank you once again. I don't want this to be an exact duplication of the Panzer Grenadier system or scenarios. I am using the maps/scenarios as a reference guide. If I can ever figure out how to make maps with the latest version of Google Earth, I might replace the maps I have made with maps of the actual areas the game maps represent. That is another project that can wait. The Panzer Grenadier game system is a great system but trying to find a FTF opponent is next to impossible. It is amazing that Avalanche Press is able to stay in business these days. I do these conversions for everyone's benefit, including my own. Some of the converted scenarios will make for some good play, others might turn out to be a complete waste of time. Once the scenarios are released, and JTCS players play them and I get input on each scenario from the players, then I can decide to leave the scenario as is, tweak the scenario a bit, or junk the scenario altogether. Well, time to SS&S and then wash the dishes. Then back to the orgs.

BTW everyone, next month is the 50th anniversary of my open-heart surgery to repair a hole between the ventricles of my heart. I guess it worked.

Chris.
In loving memory of my wife, Rebecca. 5/2/52 to 7/13/2014. I miss you sweetheart.
User avatar
junk2drive
Posts: 12856
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Arizona West Coast

RE: Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by junk2drive »

There is an article at the blitz for making maps with google earth.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
User avatar
LoneWulf63
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Columbia, South Carolina

RE: Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by LoneWulf63 »

I have the same tutorial. I get stuck when I import the overlay into Google Earth. Here is the problem. When I close the window for the overlay selection I am unable to do anything with the overlay except change the transparency of it. There are no lime-green editing lines. When the overlay selection window is open you can see the editing lines on the main screen but once you click "Ok" they disappear. Any thoughts? Chris.
In loving memory of my wife, Rebecca. 5/2/52 to 7/13/2014. I miss you sweetheart.
User avatar
MrRoadrunner
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm

RE: Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by MrRoadrunner »

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
There some aspects of the Panzer Grenadier games that I can't duplicate into JTCS format (at least I haven't figured them out yet).
1)In the PG games, each side has an "Initiative" rating. At the beginning of each turn, both players roll a six sided die and add their initiative rating to it. Whoever has the higher number, moves/fires first. A player's units can also lose initiative rating points as their units take casualties. There is more to initiative but that is the basic idea.

2)In almost all scenarios the artillery assets are off-board. In several scenarios some of these assets are available on a later turn or are not available after a certain turn. There is probably a way to reflect this in JTCS but I haven't figured out how to do it quite yet. For now, if a side has off-board artillery then it is available to that side for the entire length of the scenario. The same holds true for air support. If you can get it in the PG scenarios, even if there are restrictions, you get it in the JTCS conversions without restrictions.

3)Units. In the PG game system, each unit has only two-steps (strength points) per unit. Now I could at some point modify the oobs to reflect this but I am not sure I want to so for one simple reason. I feel that if I did this, it would take too much away from the flavor of JTCS. I will also be designing new, converting, or porting over units for each game title, if necessary. Some of these units have already been finished but will not be available with the first Fall of France scenario set. In Panzer Grenadier, you also have armored leaders. It would be easy do design such units but for the moment I will hold-off on that project until a later time.

The two most important aspects of doing these conversion scenarios is to keep these scenarios based in the JTCS game system, not the Panzer Grenadier game system. I also want them to be scenarios that all of you will want to play and share with others.

This displays the difficulty in trying to "shoehorn" the one game into the other. Forget initiative. Or better, look to morale.

1)Initiative in CS is always on the side of the attacker "in the scenario". The attacker starts first. (Granted you have counter attacks. But, who is doing the attacking? In France 1940 the Germans are the attacker unless you create a scenario that reflects the limited counter attacks done by the French and Brits.)
Morale of the individual units and supply are more the key here. With a disrupted unit (or groups of units) you will not get the punch that you need and the "initiative" goes to the opponent. Turn based, it becomes more costly in the CS system. Supply effects the firepower of the unit and could reflect some of the "initiative" going to the other side.

2) The scenario designer can effect artillery by reducing that sides supply. Artillery gets supplied by a check of the general supply, set for the scenario by the scenario designer. The lower the supply levels the less chance the artillery gets to fire each barrel each turn. (And, be careful. Artillery is already deadly in CS. Being true to PG might overweight what you do in CS.) The CS engine will decide to allocate supply to the artillery.
Air support comes in at random times according to the systems die roll. You could plot air support for a turn and have it never come onto the board. It's the CS way and not PG. Same with artillery. You can have it off board but it may not always be in supply and ready for use.

3) Why would you modify the OOB? The scenario can be designed with reduced step units. I think you are banging up against game scale and design system here? If you want lower morale or strength points you do not have to create new units. You simply modify them through the scenario design process. (Try not to over complicate your process. And, the last thing this game needs is overcrowding the amount of lines for units as it is. Each country already has green to veteran units in their OOB's.) And, remember the way units are fired upon and the factors that effect morale? Two step units are brittle. A unit at half strength has both it's firepower and morale effected.

I'm also confused about "armored leaders" in PG being unavailable in CS. A scenario designer can put armored leaders in the scenarios OOB.

You have the tools to create scenarios that reflect PG. The key to having players "enjoy and share" is more a balance issue than any mystical formula or complex changes.

Just some thoughts, given to help you get a different insight to how the blend might work.

RR
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
&#8213; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
User avatar
LoneWulf63
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Columbia, South Carolina

RE: Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by LoneWulf63 »

Roadrunner. This is exactly the type of advice I need in order to make these scenarios challenging, yet fun to play. I am sure that my first attempts will need quite a bit of tweaking but with individuals such as you, I will be able to do so with much less trouble than if I went it alone. Thank you sir for the insightful advice. Chris.
In loving memory of my wife, Rebecca. 5/2/52 to 7/13/2014. I miss you sweetheart.
User avatar
LoneWulf63
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Columbia, South Carolina

RE: Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by LoneWulf63 »

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
ORIGINAL: resinslinger
There some aspects of the Panzer Grenadier games that I can't duplicate into JTCS format (at least I haven't figured them out yet).
1)In the PG games, each side has an "Initiative" rating. At the beginning of each turn, both players roll a six sided die and add their initiative rating to it. Whoever has the higher number, moves/fires first. A player's units can also lose initiative rating points as their units take casualties. There is more to initiative but that is the basic idea.

2)In almost all scenarios the artillery assets are off-board. In several scenarios some of these assets are available on a later turn or are not available after a certain turn. There is probably a way to reflect this in JTCS but I haven't figured out how to do it quite yet. For now, if a side has off-board artillery then it is available to that side for the entire length of the scenario. The same holds true for air support. If you can get it in the PG scenarios, even if there are restrictions, you get it in the JTCS conversions without restrictions.

3)Units. In the PG game system, each unit has only two-steps (strength points) per unit. Now I could at some point modify the oobs to reflect this but I am not sure I want to so for one simple reason. I feel that if I did this, it would take too much away from the flavor of JTCS. I will also be designing new, converting, or porting over units for each game title, if necessary. Some of these units have already been finished but will not be available with the first Fall of France scenario set. In Panzer Grenadier, you also have armored leaders. It would be easy do design such units but for the moment I will hold-off on that project until a later time.

The two most important aspects of doing these conversion scenarios is to keep these scenarios based in the JTCS game system, not the Panzer Grenadier game system. I also want them to be scenarios that all of you will want to play and share with others.

This displays the difficulty in trying to "shoehorn" the one game into the other. Forget initiative. Or better, look to morale.

1)Initiative in CS is always on the side of the attacker "in the scenario". The attacker starts first. (Granted you have counter attacks. But, who is doing the attacking? In France 1940 the Germans are the attacker unless you create a scenario that reflects the limited counter attacks done by the French and Brits.)
Morale of the individual units and supply are more the key here. With a disrupted unit (or groups of units) you will not get the punch that you need and the "initiative" goes to the opponent. Turn based, it becomes more costly in the CS system. Supply effects the firepower of the unit and could reflect some of the "initiative" going to the other side.

2) The scenario designer can effect artillery by reducing that sides supply. Artillery gets supplied by a check of the general supply, set for the scenario by the scenario designer. The lower the supply levels the less chance the artillery gets to fire each barrel each turn. (And, be careful. Artillery is already deadly in CS. Being true to PG might overweight what you do in CS.) The CS engine will decide to allocate supply to the artillery.
Air support comes in at random times according to the systems die roll. You could plot air support for a turn and have it never come onto the board. It's the CS way and not PG. Same with artillery. You can have it off board but it may not always be in supply and ready for use.

3) Why would you modify the OOB? The scenario can be designed with reduced step units. I think you are banging up against game scale and design system here? If you want lower morale or strength points you do not have to create new units. You simply modify them through the scenario design process. (Try not to over complicate your process. And, the last thing this game needs is overcrowding the amount of lines for units as it is. Each country already has green to veteran units in their OOB's.) And, remember the way units are fired upon and the factors that effect morale? Two step units are brittle. A unit at half strength has both it's firepower and morale effected.

I'm also confused about "armored leaders" in PG being unavailable in CS. A scenario designer can put armored leaders in the scenarios OOB.

You have the tools to create scenarios that reflect PG. The key to having players "enjoy and share" is more a balance issue than any mystical formula or complex changes.

Just some thoughts, given to help you get a different insight to how the blend might work.

RR

Again, thank you for your insightful tips in helping me with these scenarios. I do tend to over-engineer things at times but I get that from my days of owning and operating a mold-making and resin-casting business.

I would like to address your suggestions.

1)I am not going to even worry about the "Initiative" matter. Can't be done.

2)Rather than reducing the supply for each side, which would also affect all units of that side, I could 1) reduce the number of batteries available in the PG scenario or 2) reduce the number of tubes per battery or 3)place the artillery batteries further away from the playing map or 4) any combination of these ideas. I will figure it out, just takes a bit of tweaking. Same goes for air-support because some of these PG scenarios have ridiculous amounts of available air units. It might work in PG but not so much in JTCS.

3)2 strength point units (PG 2-step units), another PG feature that I will ignore. If a unit is reduced in a particular scenario, then that is the only modification I will make to that particular unit.

4)For now, the armored commanders will have to wait. However, I did make a SdKfz 251 command vehicle, which is more for JTCS than these scenarios.

Again, thank you for your very insightful suggestions.

Chris.
In loving memory of my wife, Rebecca. 5/2/52 to 7/13/2014. I miss you sweetheart.
User avatar
Warhorse
Posts: 5369
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Contact:

RE: Some notes about the Panzer Grenadier conversions

Post by Warhorse »

Ahh, I think I get you. Try shoving the menu with OK down to the left side, out of your way, do your resizing, get it where you want, then hit ok. You can always re-open the overlay by right-clicking it up in the overlays area, and choosing properties.
Mike Amos

Meine Ehre heißt Treue
www.cslegion.com
Post Reply

Return to “John Tiller's Campaign Series”