New Tiller Game Panzer Battles

[junk2drive]

Sorry if this has been brought up before

http://johntillersoftware.com/PanzerBattles.html

[markw]

I've been enjoying his Spanish Civil War squad battles, not nearly as good as the Campaign Series but fun in its own right.

This will be interesting to see how this game plays out. Hopefully he'll be designing in something other than Windows 98 forms. [:'(]

[jomni]

I suspect this will be the same as Squad Battles and Panzer Campaigns but on platoon level units.
It will model each weapon and person instead of 'steps' like JTCS. 
Since it says that it will focus on tank battles, it will probably be like Steel Panthers 3...

[junk2drive]

The only way a game should focus on armour battles is single units on the screen. Telling me a platoon is facing a certain way is one stretch, telling me a company or battalion or more is all facing the same is silly.

[junk2drive]

Big news today. JT is self publishing. He has a store with DD. There is a small shot of Panzer Battles. It looks like JTCS with the Panzer Campaigns interface.

It will be interesting to see what he comes up with compared to the team here. I'll bet that Jason and team are more open to our suggestions.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive
I'll bet that Jason and team are more open to our suggestions.

Thank you, junk.

That is appreciated.

Jason Petho

[berto]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Big news today. JT is self publishing. He has a store with DD. There is a small shot of Panzer Battles. It looks like JTCS with the Panzer Campaigns interface.

It will be interesting to see what he comes up with compared to the team here. I'll bet that Jason and team are more open to our suggestions.

From the hostile response (and essential non-response from Jason) I got here recently to some of my suggestions, I kinda doubt it. What a turnoff!

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: berto
From the hostile response (and essential non-response from Jason) I got here recently to some of my suggestions, I kinda doubt it. What a turnoff!

Huh?

Jason Petho

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: berto
From the hostile response (and essential non-response from Jason) I got here recently to some of my suggestions, I kinda doubt it. What a turnoff!

Huh?

Jason Petho

I refer to the wishlist thread, where I suggested

• an explicit hot-seat solitaire (with extreme FOW) option [no response AFAIK]
• games ending in an unpredictable, variable number of turns [no response AFAIK]
• at game's formal end, having the option to play on [response: edit the save game file. huh? i have to delve into the mysteries of the save game file in order to enable this? when it would be so much easier simply not to abruptly terminate the game at that point?]

John Tiller's more recent HPS games have the first two options, and may or may not have the third (I would have to check).

Those suggestions (for optional rules!) were not well received within the community, to say the least.

Not to mention another forumite's suggestions to overlay more realistic command control onto the game and add to the game's realism. And the subsequent hostile, juvenile response of a few people around here (excepting you, Jason; you are always respectful and polite; but I don't recall your responding to his suggestions either).

The impression I get here is that the CS game community is happy to freeze the game more or less as it's always been, to heck with innovation and offering reasonable new optional rules.

Again, what a turnoff!

The Campaign Series of games used to be high up on my list of played, must-buy games. No more.

Their new DRM policy aside (it sucks), John Tiller Software's imminent new Panzer Battles series (akin to his earlier Campaign Series) is beginning to look like a much more attractive alternative.

Choice is good. Nice to have so many other alternatives. Nice to be able to walk away from this forum and take my business elsewhere...

[Please excuse my grumpiness. JT Software's new DRM policy has left me in an especially foul mood today. Where's our cat so I can go kick her too? [:D]]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: berto
I refer to the wishlist thread, where I suggested

[*] an explicit hot-seat solitaire (with extreme FOW) option [no response AFAIK]

There is a hot-seat option where you can turn on extreme FOW, so I don't understand what you are asking for. Can you clarify?

ORIGINAL: berto

[*]games ending in an unpredictable, variable number of turns [no response AFAIK]

An interesting idea and one that has been floating around since the Talonsoft days. As a temporary alternative, you can edit to the BTE to extend the game if you wish to play a little longer. No, it isn't the same thing, but does provide some options.

ORIGINAL: berto

[*]at game's formal end, having the option to play on [response: edit the save game file. huh? i have to delve into the mysteries of the save game file in order to enable this? when it would be so much easier simply not to abruptly terminate the game at that point?]

Yes, it would be much easier to have the option to continue or not. Manually editing the BTE is a temporary alternate solution until something like that could be implemented. If you would like to know how to do so, I can tell you offline.

It is simple suggestions like that that are taken note of and added to the Master Wishlist. Reasonably, just because it makes it onto the Master Wishlist doesn't mean it will be implemented anytime soon.

ORIGINAL: berto

John Tiller's more recent HPS games have the first two options, and may or may not have the third (I would have to check).

Those suggestions (for optional rules!) were not well received within the community, to say the least.

Not many liked the idea that the Earth was round when it was first proposed, but the idea was presented anyway. That is the primary purpose of the "wishlist" thread, for people to bring forth their ideas, no matter how off the wall or bizarre they may be. There are a lot of gems out there and that's what I'm looking for.

ORIGINAL: berto

Not to mention another forumite's suggestions to overlay more realistic command control onto the game and add to the game's realism. And the subsequent hostile, juvenile response of a few people around here (excepting you, Jason; you are always respectful and polite; but I don't recall your responding to his suggestions either).

Two significant changes on my wishlist (yes, I have one too) are an improved command and control structure and improved artillery model. Does everyone like that idea? Nope and I understand the reasons why not. Being a moderator has taught me to let a lot of the hostility and juvenile behavoir wash over, it just isn't worth it to become embroiled in the arguements.

Thank you for the kind words.

ORIGINAL: berto

The impression I get here is that the CS game community is happy to freeze the game more or less as it's always been, to heck with innovation and offering reasonable new optional rules.

Not everyone is open to change, no. On the brightside, many others are open to change and are embracing the new optional rules that have been released so far. Additionally, not everyone uses the game the same as everyone else.

May there be other optional rules in the future? Quite possibly, yes. What will they be? Who knows... there isn't anything on the drawing boards right now for new optional rules due to the primary focus being on Modern Wars: Volume I. I am so excited about this release!

ORIGINAL: berto
Again, what a turnoff!

The Campaign Series of games used to be high up on my list of played, must-buy games. No more.

Due to the nature of how some of the threads have played out, yes, I can see how it can be a turn off. I apologize to you for letting things get out of hand.

ORIGINAL: berto

Their new DRM policy aside (it sucks), John Tiller Software's imminent new Panzer Battles series (akin to his earlier Campaign Series) is beginning to look like a much more attractive alternative.

Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the new DRM policy? Whose policy?

ORIGINAL: berto
Choice is good. Nice to have so many other alternatives. Nice to be able to walk away from this forum and take my business elsewhere...

Yes, choice is good. Variety is the spice of life. It would be unfortunate to see you go, of course.

ORIGINAL: berto
[Please excuse my grumpiness. JT Software's new DRM policy has left me in an especially foul mood today. Where's our cat so I can go kick her too? [:D]]

No worries, berto.

Jason Petho

[V22 Osprey]

Jason, John Tiller himself is now splitting off from HPS and publishing his own games. However, the games now have a DRM where you can only install on one computer with online activation. Pretty sad to say the least.

[dudalb_slith]

Yeah, the DRM is a deal breaker for me.
I would love to know what happened between Tiller and HPS that lead to this.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: berto
I refer to the wishlist thread, where I suggested

[*] an explicit hot-seat solitaire (with extreme FOW) option [no response AFAIK]

There is a hot-seat option where you can turn on extreme FOW, so I don't understand what you are asking for. Can you clarify?

Duh, you are right. Wish (already) fulfilled!

The Campaign Series is one of those set aside for a couple of years but always come back to games. I forget details.

Thank you for your patient and respectful response. Happy holidays!

[sabre1]

Thanks Jason for keeping such a wonderful game alive without the stupid DRM restrictions of other companies. Have a very Merry Christmas!

[junk2drive]

Having spent much time in the various places where JT's store policy is being discussed so to speak, it occurred to me that the new CS, I mean PC, will probably consist of one map with a bunch of scenarios covering a section of a war. So instead of getting the value of JTCS and the Modern series here, you can buy release after release after release...

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: berto

I refer to the wishlist thread, where I suggested

[*] an explicit hot-seat solitaire (with extreme FOW) option [no response AFAIK]

There is a hot-seat option where you can turn on extreme FOW, so I don't understand what you are asking for. Can you clarify?

I tried verifying this. In Rising Sun, I load any scenario, choose Manual/Manual (hot-seat solitaire) for A/I Selection, then check Extreme Fog-of-War under Optional Rules. Yet on game start, and from turn to turn, I can view all forces on both sides. Where is the FOW?

What I want is to play one side, then the other; but to partially view the opposing side as if I were playing against the "Computer with FOW"--i.e., where most of "my opponent's" forces are hidden.

Are you sure this is working as intended? (Can you verify correct operation yourself?) Or where am I mistaken?

[Jason Petho]

Hi berto

Try this:

Open the game

Start Scenario

Hot Seat

Choose a scenario

Choose your optional rules

It should start as the first side: "Ready for Axis Player" or "Ready for Allied Player"

Jason Petho

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Hi berto

Try this:

Open the game

Start Scenario

Hot Seat

Choose a scenario

Choose your optional rules

It should start as the first side: "Ready for Axis Player" or "Ready for Allied Player"

Jason Petho
.

Got it. I'm so used to playing Tiller's other HPS titles where this option is now presented somewhat differently. I have to reopen my eyes to his earlier way of doing things. Sorry to trouble you (again).

[Jason Petho]

Not a bother at all, berto!

Glad it is figured out!

Jason Petho

[markw]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Big news today. JT is self publishing. He has a store with DD. There is a small shot of Panzer Battles. It looks like JTCS with the Panzer Campaigns interface.

It will be interesting to see what he comes up with compared to the team here. I'll bet that Jason and team are more open to our suggestions.

Curious, where can I see this screenshot?

thanks.

-mark