Air unit speed
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Air unit speed
Explain this to me, maybe I'm missing something:
I never understood why air speed isn't better represented in Panzer Corps, and Panzer General games in general.
I-16 moves 13
109 13, 14, 14 14,
190A and D 14 14
TA fighter, 14
me163 14
Me262 14
Is there a reason for this, what's wrong with a more accurate formula say... top MPH divided by 30 = movement.
Me 262 was 559 MPH so it moves speed 18.
Bf 109G was 398 MPH so it moves speed 13.
And so on and so forth.
I never understood why air speed isn't better represented in Panzer Corps, and Panzer General games in general.
I-16 moves 13
109 13, 14, 14 14,
190A and D 14 14
TA fighter, 14
me163 14
Me262 14
Is there a reason for this, what's wrong with a more accurate formula say... top MPH divided by 30 = movement.
Me 262 was 559 MPH so it moves speed 18.
Bf 109G was 398 MPH so it moves speed 13.
And so on and so forth.
-
- Captain - Heavy Cruiser
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:42 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
I always thought People's General handled air units in a logical, believable manner. Air units were not represented as actual units on the playing field, but rather as assets that could be called in to perform various tasks (interdiction, bombardment, recon, etc.). Air "points" determined how many missions could be performed in a turn (for example, simple recon flights cost 1 point, whereas heavy bombing runs could cost 5 points). Maybe something to consider in the future?
Re: Air unit speed
Would this formula affect other air units as well? Strategic and tactical bombers would see a drop in their range. Top speed of a Ju188 is like 300mph, so that would only allow 10 hex movement. A Ju87 Stuka is even worse with a top speed of around 240mph; that only leaves 8 movement. You could use a different formula for strategic and tactical bombers. Say you use 22 for the division number, so the Ju87 stays at it's current 11 range, then that will make the Ju188 have a range of 13 (up from it's current 12).Kerensky wrote: Is there a reason for this, what's wrong with a more accurate formula say... top MPH divided by 30 = movement.
Me 262 was 559 MPH so it moves speed 18.
Bf 109G was 398 MPH so it moves speed 13.
And so on and so forth.
As far as the Me262 goes, 18 is way too much movement for it, especially when looking at it's very limited range of only 650 miles. Sure, it could go 559mph, but after just over an hour, it would have to land. Currently, it has 65 fuel, so the combination of 18 movement with 65 fuel plus it's firepower is pretty devastating. Fuel would have to be cut dramatically to compensate.
I never like that even though it was kinda realistic for modern jet planes.dshaw62197 wrote:I always thought People's General handled air units in a logical, believable manner. Air units were not represented as actual units on the playing field, but rather as assets that could be called in to perform various tasks (interdiction, bombardment, recon, etc.). Air "points" determined how many missions could be performed in a turn (for example, simple recon flights cost 1 point, whereas heavy bombing runs could cost 5 points). Maybe something to consider in the future?
As for gameplay i found it very boring,i like to micro manage things
Movement for air units was done arbitrary and in line with PG. If formula is applied and consistent it could make some units too slow other too fast. Is it good or bad is an open question. Personally I do not like when you do not need to think about distances and refuelling, it gives airfields more strategic value.
I agree on Kerenskys argument that the speed of air units should get better represented.
The fuel amount could also be correlated to data about maximum possible fly distance which should be available for at least all historically existing and relevant craft. The rest could be adjusted by comparison and projected data perhaps ?
If 650 miles was the maximum distance for a ME-262 then that would correlate to 10miles = 1 fuel unit. One could apply that to all aircraft - but a scaling factor of 10 might be too low.
Perhaps 15 ? that would make the Me-262 have 41/42 fuel ? I did not check on the rest.
Also perhaps make a lowest speed of 10 for aircraft ? Like 10 + 1 per 30 miles above 300mph
The fuel amount could also be correlated to data about maximum possible fly distance which should be available for at least all historically existing and relevant craft. The rest could be adjusted by comparison and projected data perhaps ?
If 650 miles was the maximum distance for a ME-262 then that would correlate to 10miles = 1 fuel unit. One could apply that to all aircraft - but a scaling factor of 10 might be too low.
Perhaps 15 ? that would make the Me-262 have 41/42 fuel ? I did not check on the rest.
Also perhaps make a lowest speed of 10 for aircraft ? Like 10 + 1 per 30 miles above 300mph
What is the time scale for a "turn" in this game? If it is more than minutes, then speed is no more relevant than facing at this scale. If a turn is measured in hours, then range and fuel would matter, but not really speed.
You are not turning and banking to outfly your opponent, you just need to reach him.
You are not turning and banking to outfly your opponent, you just need to reach him.
The reason this was changed, was due to the addition of helicopters taking over the role of the previous air units.I always thought People's General handled air units in a logical, believable manner.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
PzC is an abstraction and the stats of units are as well - therefore for the actual purpose the data on the craft do matter and IMO should somehow reflect their actual "combat" value and usage parameters - yet their sizes and numbers are quite abstracted for the use on the hexagon field.
It also would not matter whether the time scale is minutes or days ...the battle is abstracted. But the early scenarios would fit into a day or a few days per turn scale.
I did not really liked the way how aircraft were done in Peoples General - though they made the best out of the way they changed it.
It also would not matter whether the time scale is minutes or days ...the battle is abstracted. But the early scenarios would fit into a day or a few days per turn scale.
I did not really liked the way how aircraft were done in Peoples General - though they made the best out of the way they changed it.
Ahh interesting, and quite enlightening. Sorry, this is something I've never really understood myself, I was honestly curious.
If top speed, or cruising speed, divided by a variable is too severe. Aircraft could be divided up into ranks.
Planes falling into the 200-300 mph range will have movement 10 or 11.
Planes falling into 300-400 mph range will have movement 12 or 13.
Planes falling into 500-600 mph range will have movement 14 15.
Me163 will be 16 movement probably.
It's not a big deal though, just throwing ideas around.
If top speed, or cruising speed, divided by a variable is too severe. Aircraft could be divided up into ranks.
Planes falling into the 200-300 mph range will have movement 10 or 11.
Planes falling into 300-400 mph range will have movement 12 or 13.
Planes falling into 500-600 mph range will have movement 14 15.
Me163 will be 16 movement probably.
It's not a big deal though, just throwing ideas around.
I think that is a much better idea and would result in far less variation of movement speeds. Maybe leave the Me262 at 15, though, since it didn't go over 600mph and your 14/15 bracket is the 500-600mph range. I think 15 is plenty.Kerensky wrote:Ahh interesting, and quite enlightening. Sorry, this is something I've never really understood myself, I was honestly curious.
If top speed, or cruising speed, divided by a variable is too severe. Aircraft could be divided up into ranks.
Planes falling into the 200-300 mph range will have movement 10 or 11.
Planes falling into 300-400 mph range will have movement 12 or 13.
Planes falling into 500-600 mph range will have movement 14 15.
Me163 will be 16 movement probably.
It's not a big deal though, just throwing ideas around.
This would make a good approach.Kerensky wrote:Ahh interesting, and quite enlightening. Sorry, this is something I've never really understood myself, I was honestly curious.
If top speed, or cruising speed, divided by a variable is too severe. Aircraft could be divided up into ranks.
Planes falling into the 200-300 mph range will have movement 10 or 11.
Planes falling into 300-400 mph range will have movement 12 or 13.
Planes falling into 500-600 mph range will have movement 14 15.
Me163 will be 16 movement probably.
It's not a big deal though, just throwing ideas around.
Right. Komet is already exaggerated with its fuel to make it somehow gameplay value as flying air defense.VPaulus wrote:+1wyldman68 wrote:I would not use top speed, cruising speed should be used.
And if my memory is correct the Me163 had an endurance of something like 7.5 minutes and then it glided back to earth.
At least no more than 15 minutes and it was used against bombers.