1940 Czech problems

[ken_lawr]

The bonus instructions state that to get thee bonus, you cannot Destroy any Czech units. The bonus is an infantry veteran. I attacked an anti-tank gun with 7 strength. Prediction was reduction of 4, leaving 3. I had envelopment on my tank. When I fired, the damage was 4 as predicted. The anti-tank gun surrendered, but I got the message that the bonus was gone because I destroyed the anti-tank gun. It seems to me that surrendering is not being destroyed and the bonus should still be available.

This is a historical scenario and we know that the Czechs didn't fight except one small group in a small town fought for some hours. In addition to fighting, the units throw themselves at your units when they have very low strength. It is more like a game of Go than what I would expect from this game.

[Droogan]

Honest question; I have posted for as long as PC2 has existed, as an original Allied general/PC1 fan and I can't tell if trolling is now the replacement for actual news regarding this game that I greatly respect.

The rule I have heard is criticize the game, not the person; but lately I feel in the absence of substantive news of PC2 or PC2 Pacific, is these mindless, ongoing disgorgement's, which are in lieu of any real sort of beneficial, discussions of the game, we all really like.

I have opinions, but they are not valid if they criticize people. Having said that, all that keeps this sad thread of attention to this wonderful game is two very specific posters. If you can guess them then I make my point.

Development is hard. Putting forth information is a perilous game, as any new insights make the developers feel beholden. But in the absence of real information comes threads that are left to the vultures and the despondent.

Please either moderate or dissipate, this interim modality is damaging to the game we actually all like and want to succeed.

[SPAMBO]

From Google:

De·stroy
verb
put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.
"the room had been destroyed by fire"
or for PC...
"the unit has been destroyed by surrendering."

[gutthans]

Originally posted by Droogan:

Honest question; I have posted for as long as PC2 has existed, as an original Allied general/PC1 fan and I can't tell if trolling is now the replacement for actual news regarding this game that I greatly respect.

Where, is the question? You have opined on something, but you started your response in a manner that leads me to look for a question. You haven't done anything differently than 'the two of us' did.

As to criticism? The developers ARE as much the game as the software itself. No one is criticizing the people however. I am critiguing game mechanics, specifically in the Czech scenario and the logic used to validate what both of us believe is a poor or deficient terminology.

Surrendering is NOT a synonym. It is being used as a euphemism for 'destroyed'. You can intend to use it that way, but should be mindful that it is misleading. It would have been a lot less problematic if, somewhere, an editor had bothered to write: For this scenario a surrendered unit will be considered as 'destroyed'.

Games don't improve without feedback, which is what this is intended to be. If you want to moderate an echo chamber and have everyone hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and only talk about happy things that everyone agrees with, then relabel this blog and put a 'content warning' up. Expressing dissatisfaction seems to be threatening and offensive and probably needs to be controlled.

[Raymond of Tripoli]

No offence Gutthans but it beggars belief you can play the scenario 30 times without twigging that if a unit surrenders you lose the points.

It's not my favourite scenario and as an AO it's up there with 1944 Historical in terms of quality but if you played it once it should be obvious surrendering equated to destroyed as you get a message re lost points as soon as this happens.

Given the terms of the scenario think its fair enough that you lose the points if a unit surrenders, whether the scenario should have been there in the first place is a better question.

[Droogan]

Originally posted by gutthans:

Originally posted by Droogan:

Honest question; I have posted for as long as PC2 has existed, as an original Allied general/PC1 fan and I can't tell if trolling is now the replacement for actual news regarding this game that I greatly respect.

Where, is the question? You have opined on something, but you started your response in a manner that leads me to look for a question. You haven't done anything differently than 'the two of us' did.

As to criticism? The developers ARE as much the game as the software itself. No one is criticizing the people however. I am critiguing game mechanics, specifically in the Czech scenario and the logic used to validate what both of us believe is a poor or deficient terminology.

Surrendering is NOT a synonym. It is being used as a euphemism for 'destroyed'. You can intend to use it that way, but should be mindful that it is misleading. It would have been a lot less problematic if, somewhere, an editor had bothered to write: For this scenario a surrendered unit will be considered as 'destroyed'.

Games don't improve without feedback, which is what this is intended to be. If you want to moderate an echo chamber and have everyone hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and only talk about happy things that everyone agrees with, then relabel this blog and put a 'content warning' up. Expressing dissatisfaction seems to be threatening and offensive and probably needs to be controlled.

Good point. My question is why can't the developers share even small bits of information on what is coming for the game, more consistently? Rather then leave the message boards silent where all that can take place is fighting over semantics.

[gutthans]

30 might have been a bit of an exaggeration...I lost count actually. But this isn't about losing the points. I got that immediately. It is perfectly fine with me if that's the way they want to design it. I just couldn't understand, at the time, the why of it because, in my reality, surrendering is not destroying. So, in my reality, different terminology should have been employed and the confusion would have been eliminated.

Having stumbled across this thread, it is now apparent that the developers ARE making that equation . I (and apparently Ken) don't think that was a wise equation without any explanation. I just agree with Ken that it was a poor linguistic choice akin to calling beach sand 'dirt' or 'topsoil' because it's all 'earth'. The unit is 'removed'. " You will forfeit the bonus if a unit is removed". If a developer wants to term all removals as destroyed they certainly can. But a 'destroyed' unit has a different connotation than a captured or surrendered one, at least IRL, and a developer/editor ought to be cognizant of that and could/should take it into account.

BTW, it really isn't just semantics. The older players are, the more impact creatively using or combining terminology becomes as it imparts an unreal, discordant quality that isn't intuitive. Words and symbols have certain expectations. I am only suggesting that manuals, literature. or pop-ups disclose those creative (artistic license) uses.

[gutthans]

Originally posted by Raymond of Tripoli:

No offence Gutthans but it beggars belief you can play the scenario 30 times without twigging that if a unit surrenders you lose the points.

Given the terms of the scenario think its fair enough that you lose the points if a unit surrenders

Answered this above, but it's fine to lose points on surrender, that was self-evident the first time I tried. What was NEVER clarified was the developers' choice to de facto equate surrender with destruction, which is not a natural equation. Sorry, but us old people like 'real', especially if your are modeling in a simulation. When you deviate, make it clear!

In game vernacular, 'removal from play = unit destruction' would have better communicated the outcome of the command and placement decision effects.

[Boredflak]

I think what you and others lose sight of is this is a GAME it is not a simulation in any way. When you write something you know what you intended to say. However if you have 100 random people read it and tell you what you mean you will get many different answers. (there are many reasons for this, but it is something I have seen over and over. When I wrote Incident Reports I had to keep in mind that someone would try to pick it apart if it ever ended up in court, which was always a possibility)

The dev's wrote the scenario briefing. In their mind it is clear, and does not require a redo. No matter how many things you fix with clearer briefing etc, there will always be someone that interprets it differently. ( remember we all come from different backgrounds, education level, life experiences, languages, cultures, etc..) So in the end not fixing something they feel is not broken is their choice. They do not owe us anything. If it is a bug that effects play yes it should be fixed.

You can argue the meaning of words forever and it will not change anything. Those of us that have played PzC 2 since it launched have seen these arguments before. ( in reality you should search the forums for what you have an issue on, read those posts and move on) Many people simply post the question some of which have been answered many times. Then when someone answers it with what they KNOW to be accurate those people argue they are wrong because this word means this or that. The game is supported by a very small staff. If they were to correct everything you want corrected it would slow down future content. Most of us would rather see that not happen.

[gutthans]

Originally posted by Boredflak:

The dev's wrote the scenario briefing. In their mind it is clear, ...

You know, I think many of you aren't really getting what I'm trying to get across, but you did succinctly point out the source of the problem quite nicely.

It's isn't about being a game or a simulation (we can dicker those meanings as you suggested different things to different people) and it isn't relevant that it's a small staff. Those are straw man issues.

"In their mind it is clear" IS the point. 'Their mind', NOT my mind. I'm simply trying to let you know what I have a problem with, and why. Everyone is egocentric and sees through the lens of their own eye, not someone else's (I think you said that too). I think the way it was done was an unintended error. It isn't about anything other than that.

I don't expect a dev to like what I said . I don't expect a dev to do anything about it either. I do expect that someone on the programming/design side ought to be able to go "Hmmm, didn't think of that". THAT tells me someone assimilated the idea and gets it. I don't care what they do with it after that.

[Boredflak]

Originally posted by gutthans:

"In their mind it is clear" IS the point. 'Their mind', NOT my mind. I'm simply trying to let you know what I have a problem with, and why. Everyone is egocentric and sees through the lens of their own eye, not someone else's (I think you said that too). I think the way it was done was an unintended error. It isn't about anything other than that.

How can something you feel is correct be an error? I understand to YOU it is an error. But to the vast majority of us and to the dev it is not an error. Like I said before we can argue the meaning of words forever and get no where. Thank you for discussing this with me. We might have to agree to disagree and move on,

[gutthans]

Originally posted by Boredflak:

Originally posted by gutthans:

How can something you feel is correct be an error? I understand to YOU it is an error. But to the vast majority of us and to the dev it is not an error. Like I said before we can argue the meaning of words forever and get no where. Thank you for discussing this with me. We might have to agree to disagree and move on,

I believe it is correct to state that In the whole of the game, surrender results in accruing a reward for the attacker. Yes?

How then can YOU not see that reversing that, and having surrender cause a penalty to the attacker, only in one scenario, is a bit odd (?) and quite possibly in need a slightly better explanation?

Majority agreement? All that accounts for is that it's a non-issue for a large number of players and, apparently, the devs. But that isn't relevant nor does it defend whether or not it could or should have been taken into account.

As to your opening line? Because we are discussing several, intertwined issues, the net result of which is unneeded confusion for a portion of your customer base. Note that in an earlier post, you took issue with MY use of simulation as a descriptor? That's a semantic argument just as 'destroyed' vs. removed would be. Hmmm? Cheers, and thanks for the discussion. I'm toast. Going to rest up and retry that doggone scenario until the magic happens!

[Boredflak]

Good luck of all the scenarios it can be a royal pain in the posterior to win, and get that bonus objective. Just to let you know most people I know would rate it as the most frustrating scenario by far. It is not hard to win the scenario the hard part it the bonus.

[Edmon]

Originally posted by gutthans:

I honestly think it's a generational thing (I also realize that I'm being very general in such a broad-brush description and I apologize for the perception of a stereotype that readers will take from it.. ). Gen Z's and Millennials approach language differently than Boomers (with the possible exception of coding as that HAS to be exact). What I find irritating is the tendency to double-down on their position rather than acknowledge the validity of a criticism. It's seldom a personal attack, but they often respond that way. They don't appear to recognize the inherent confusion created when words are used in idiosyncratic manner and don't seem to appreciate that the request to correct it has validity. I'm fine with someone telling me they aren't going to change a thing as long as they're straightforward about it.

A game can be constructed with any term the developer wants to use. It will mean one thing to one group and something different to another. Proper usage depends upon understanding the multiple definitions and usages of your audience for many words, and selecting on that basis. In this case, it sure seems to me that the use of destruction in that context did not take any other meaning into account than the one they chose to use for their purposes. I don't think they thought about the IRL conflict there.

I am giving out a warning for this post because it's agest and disrespectful to certain generations of players. It also implies that anyone that disagrees with the OP's postion is "doubling down", I.E. incorrect because they don't have the insight of the older generation. It's written extremely well but it's also written to be insulting and to belittle any differing response.

I don't care how elegantly and apologetically "Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" is written, it's not allowed here and it's flamebait.


This is a game, and in a game words mean specific "game" things. This is why such words are often defined by the manual. However, in this case, the word is not being used in this way (like words such as "meta" or "tempo" might be).

The Oxford dictionary defines "destroy" as follows:
end the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.

A surrendered unit literally ceases to exist, so by this dictionary definition, it is destroyed.

There is no confusion here to be had, the word is being used correctly.



I am going to lock this topic as well, because it is only leading to people flaming each other.

Edit: I will make a feedback note, to make it very clear that surrendered units are destroyed.