Panzer General II, engineers and bridges........
Kurt W. Lupinsky
blows it up, what exactly is the reason/effect of this action? Does
anyone know why there isn't any sound effect when this happens?
Thanks,
Kurt
Tim K
I didn't know they could blow up bridges. I'll have to try that out.
But, since there are impassable rivers. Blowing the bridges should
stop all movement through that area.
Tim
Kurt W. Lupinsky
Class: Engineer Abilities). The bridging engineer is unable to
do this, just Pioneres and engineers. I downloaded a new scenario
@ the Zerstorer's web site (Battle of Berlin 1946) and the intro
text it said just to blow the bridges in the first turn, after messing w/
I was like "I'll be damned..." But then beyond that it doesn't seem
to do anything except from the center section of the bridge being
gone. I made up a test scenario using the large impassable rivers
in the Dessau scenario and the allies were still able to cross the
blown out bridges w/ just armor (no bridging engineers present).
You have to have them on a hex next to an unoccupied bridge and
this counts as their attack and won't work if they've been in combat that
turn. You then left click on the engineers (selecting them), right click
on the bridge and a small plunger detonator device appears and then
w/o moving the cursor you left click again and it blows up.........
Kurt
sb
>
> It just has a short statement in the game manual (p. 98, Infantry
> Class: Engineer Abilities). The bridging engineer is unable to
> do this, just Pioneres and engineers. I downloaded a new scenario
> @ the Zerstorer's web site (Battle of Berlin 1946) and the intro
> text it said just to blow the bridges in the first turn, after messing w/
> I was like "I'll be damned..." But then beyond that it doesn't seem
> to do anything except from the center section of the bridge being
> gone. I made up a test scenario using the large impassable rivers
> in the Dessau scenario and the allies were still able to cross the
> blown out bridges w/ just armor (no bridging engineers present).
>
slowed down movement, didn´t it?
sb
Kurt W. Lupinsky
vehicle or other ground unit stop at/on that blown out bridge's
hex for that round despite how much movement is left. The
next turn it can be crossed normally w/o bridging engineers so
you get a slight delaying action, but your not going to be able to
mount a defense like on the level of the Rhine in 1945. I guess
that they probably thought it would slow down the game too much,
but it would have been great for the defenders in Dessau, Seelow
Heights and Lillehammer scenarios, among others. The AI has
never used this option that I've seen.
Kurt
sb wrote:
perhaps it slowed down movement?
Evil Q
Q
sb wrote in message <35EB01...@vip.cybercity.dk>...
sb
other parts of the filesystem which I have messed around with, the
program resets a lot of values between turns (and between scenarios if
you´re in a campaign). It just could be that it simply resets the
terrain info for the bridge hex to "bridge".
Anyway, it´s a pitty and just one more unrealistic feature. PGII IMO
really wasted a lot of potential.
sb
Kurt W. Lupinsky
even deeper into this. I do like the game but w/ bugs like the
effectiveness of urban armor assaults, I find myself starting the
with a very strategic mindset, but it [usually] just turns in to
a might makes right free-for-all. And those nicely rendered
railroads are just crying to have supply trains on them.......to
be attacked of course. Have you encountered any other games
that allow you to approach things more realistically? (Kind of
like the Comp Game version of John Toland's Last 100 Days?)
Christopher Lipski
>blows it up, what exactly is the reason/effect of this action? Does
>anyone know why there isn't any sound effect when this happens?
When you blow up a bridge the graphic is replaced with the ruins of one and
the terrain changes to that of a fordable river. The reason that you would
want to do so is to slow down the advance of any attackers. It is a very
handy tactic in the Bear Rising scenario. If you have a spare engineer
handy, you might want to blow up bridges as you advance so that you don't
have to worry about the enemy running quickly around your flank.
It would be nice if they had a sound effect to go along with the graphics.
Chris
--
My Panzer General 2 page at www.crosswinds.net/san-antonio/~timeless/pg2/
(Soon to be updated)
sb
>
I do like the game but w/ bugs like the
> effectiveness of urban armor assaults, I find myself starting the
> with a very strategic mindset, but it [usually] just turns in to
> a might makes right free-for-all.
When playing vs. the AI, perhaps you don´t always have the option, but
nobody actually stops you from introducing your own set of rules. E.g. I
never assault infantry in cities with armour and therefore pay the price
with the risk of a rugged defense. The game is winnable anyway - it´s
just less unrealistic that way. I try to do the same with coremix; to
give it a realistic mix and not just all-out panzers and 150mm´s.
>And those nicely rendered
> railroads are just crying to have supply trains on them.......to
> be attacked of course.
I have a confession to make here: I´ve seen railroads mentioned, but
where on the map are they? It may be that some of the lines I believe
are roads, are actually railroads (but it makes no differende anyway).
How do you tell them apart (not mentioned in the manual AFAIK).
>Have you encountered any other games
> that allow you to approach things more realistically? (Kind of
> like the Comp Game version of John Toland's Last 100 Days?)
>
Yes, recently I started playing SMG. I don´t think the realism of any
wargame has ever been that high (even the sounds!). But perhaps you´re
thinking of turnbased games? I´ll make you laugh here: PGI is more
realistic than PGII on some points. Especially when it comes to strategy
(not tactics, mind you). PGI does however have other downsides making it
more like a "realistic boardgame" and less like a warsimulation.
Overall, PGI IMO is still a better game than PGII allthough it´s
something like 4 years old.
I think we´ll have to wait for RTM before any real godd realistic game
will be around.
sb
str...@nospam.bigfoot.com
where on the map are they? It may be that some of the lines I believe
are roads, are actually railroads (but it makes no differende anyway).
How do you tell them apart (not mentioned in the manual AFAIK).<
If you play the Russian campaign in PG2, it's full of railroads!
-Steve
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-
*Steve Strayer*
Undisputed Ruler of the Universe.
(the act of reading this is your acceptance of
all claims made by Steve Strayer, and/or affiliates
of said party speaking on his behalf. )
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kurt W. Lupinsky
just the rail bed and track. They run through the valley in the
Thermopylae campaign and and in Zitadelle/Prokhorovka they run
through Belograd in the SW and zigzag through Prokhorovka in the
NW (among others). It think they might be confused as roads w/ tire
tracks on them, but when they turn so that they are oriented vertically,
you can see the horizontal bars in the support bed. If I remember
correctly the Viipuri scenario has the most clearly rendered w/ it
running on a prepared bed in a NE to SW direction (right through
the city from airfield to airfield).
Kurt
Brian Hobbs
easy, and too slow (with all the fancy graphics) and too much a repeat. PG
is still on my hard drive, but number two is already gone.
sb wrote:
> Kurt W. Lupinsky wrote:
> >
> > I've been messing w/ it more and It seems that it just makes the
> > vehicle or other ground unit stop at/on that blown out bridge's
> > hex for that round despite how much movement is left. The
> > next turn it can be crossed normally w/o bridging engineers so
> > you get a slight delaying action, but your not going to be able to
> > mount a defense like on the level of the Rhine in 1945. I guess
> > that they probably thought it would slow down the game too much,
> > but it would have been great for the defenders in Dessau, Seelow
> > Heights and Lillehammer scenarios, among others. The AI has
> > never used this option that I've seen.
> >
> > Kurt
> >
sb
>
> >I have a confession to make here: I扉e seen railroads mentioned, but
> where on the map are they? It may be that some of the lines I believe
> are roads, are actually railroads (but it makes no differende anyway).
> How do you tell them apart (not mentioned in the manual AFAIK).<
>
>
scenarios? In reality there were lots! I thought they had left it out
entirely because of the map scale or because logistics play no part
anyway.
Just one more question to this unfinished game.
sb
Hopefully the spammer mutation will prove to be an evolutionary
<bdh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I agree with the waste part. PG was a great game, but number 2 is way too
>easy, and too slow (with all the fancy graphics) and too much a repeat. PG
>is still on my hard drive, but number two is already gone.
>sb wrote:
I agree mostly. I missed the larger scenarios of the original, and the
campaigns in PG2 simply don't offer enough scenarios. They're all
pathetically brief. Even the few large scenarios in PG2 don't satisfy,
since they mostly require you to win in 10 or so turns. I was also
disappointed with the scenario selection included, since the long
campaign has too many early battles and not enough late war ones for
my taste. And the shorter campaigns are - you guessed it - too damned
short.
On the plus side, it ran fine, installed clean, looked great. And the
gameplay I got out of it was enjoyable, there just wasn't enough of
it. I'll admit I haven't used the scenario editor since I'm not really
interested in playing stand alone scenarios. I've got TOAW for that.
The campaign aspect (carrying a force throughout and molding it into
what suited you best) is what drew me to PG and AG. PG2's campaigns
just fell short in terms of content imo.
Cynic
JackyO
I also found the Pg2 campaigns kind of lame.
Howerver, I have seen some user created campaigns around. Are these
simply standard length campaigns with the scenario order changed?
BTW, how is Allied General? Is it worth getting?
sb
>
> BTW, how is Allied General? Is it worth getting?
Be carefull with this one. I扉e seen players praise this game whereas
personally I found it very disappointing. Crashbugs, ruined sounds
(tanks sounds like a bunch of empty cans dragged over some rocks (which
it may be?)), and corny graphics.
Some gamers have no such problems and I suspect that there are more
versions of AG and that that might be the reason. Unfortunately I do not
know what the difference is (it愀 not the usual german/english version
problem).
Does anybody know?
sb
JackyO
Thanks for the post.
Allied General proceeded PG2, right? So it uses the PG1 engine?
How were the campaigns? Large with different paths, like PG1? I think
SSI missed the boat with the campaigns in PG2
sb
The campaigns are somewhat split up due to the side you play (allied).
The russian is the longest one starting with the winterwar against the
Finns. The british start in northafrica (Tobruk) and the US start in
northafrica (Tunesia). The path from Tunesia seems to be the same
(warning: I haven愒 finished a campaign, so I don愒 know). I general I
believe that the campaigns are longer (at least the russian) and it does
include some of the missing battles of PG2 (I think Leningrad is
included).
In general, AG is more like PacGen - if you know that one - than PG1. So
AG is generally a good game allthough the technical flaws I mentioned,
made me give it up (I believe there愀 an option to convert the scenarios
to/from PacGen or PG1 - may be a way out?)
sb