Panzer Corps 3 - ideas, wishlist

[DefiantXYX]

An interesting idea was in panzer general 3d or 3 scorched earth( names may be off) the later PG games. One had a motor pool when a unit became available you got 1 the next mission 2 or 3 then unlimited after that. This would be a great mechanism to use. It forced you to not just run the best of each unit type. Also for rare units you could restrict how many are available. I think units still had points and there was a max core points.

You already have this in the game with the limited stock feature.

[seco1]

I dont use limited stock. Isn’t that parts? This would be like 2 tiger 1s units and 1 tiger 2 unit ect with unlimited repairs. Like gift units. If you give me 40 Tiger 2s parts there is an opportunity to field multiple units but get less missions.
So command would make a unit available or unavailable depending on date or possibly as a reward, or even as a limited use reward. No repair issues.

[DefiantXYX]

If there is a new unit you get 20 parts for any map.
First time you could field 2 tiger units with a strength of 10 but you have no parts to repair them.

[adiekmann]

...unless you had multiple Field Repair heroes.

[George_Parr]

If there was one thing I would hope for in a possible Panzer Corps 3, it would be going back to the old hero model, or something closer to it.

As much fun as it can be to have a unit curb-stomp four units in a row, it just sucks the tactical / strategic element right out of the game. Some heroes are just too strong, and some combinations just plain ridiculous. Yes, you can refrain from using them in such a way, but the issue with that is that the scenarios are now often build with the possibility of such heroes being used in mind. Which in some cases has led to double paths of a somewhat easy main goal, combined with absurdly strong opponents on bonus goals. To counter your absurdly strong units, the computer gets absurdly strong units, and if you don't want to play like that, you kind of have to stay out of its way.

The game should strive to keep the tactical elements as the main focus, and absurdly strong units just circumvent this entirely. Yes, a powerful tank unit should wipe the floor with an infantry unit in open terrain, but there is no need to have heroes turn core elements on its head. If you have to take a city and try it with a tank, that should be a really bad idea, and heroes shouldn't change that entirely.

Having a unit gain one (random) special feature could work, especially if you largely go with the less powerful heroes. An infantry that could heal one strength point per turn if it doesn't attack, is quite powerful, but not overbearingly so, and it doesn't counter tactical elements of the game. A panzer unit gaining the feature that prevents it from being ambushed would add unique flavour as well, without it being a comical advantage.

[dukeiii]

mac version (ARM processor)
knowing it's unlikely.

[dalfrede]

mac version (ARM processor)

I play PzC2 on my MacBook Pro M3.
I use the Porting Kit. It is a little complicated to get it to work, but it does work.

[o_t_d_x]

If there was one thing I would hope for in a possible Panzer Corps 3, it would be going back to the old hero model, or something closer to it.

As much fun as it can be to have a unit curb-stomp four units in a row, it just sucks the tactical / strategic element right out of the game. Some heroes are just too strong, and some combinations just plain ridiculous. Yes, you can refrain from using them in such a way, but the issue with that is that the scenarios are now often build with the possibility of such heroes being used in mind. Which in some cases has led to double paths of a somewhat easy main goal, combined with absurdly strong opponents on bonus goals. To counter your absurdly strong units, the computer gets absurdly strong units, and if you don't want to play like that, you kind of have to stay out of its way.

The game should strive to keep the tactical elements as the main focus, and absurdly strong units just circumvent this entirely. Yes, a powerful tank unit should wipe the floor with an infantry unit in open terrain, but there is no need to have heroes turn core elements on its head. If you have to take a city and try it with a tank, that should be a really bad idea, and heroes shouldn't change that entirely.

Having a unit gain one (random) special feature could work, especially if you largely go with the less powerful heroes. An infantry that could heal one strength point per turn if it doesn't attack, is quite powerful, but not overbearingly so, and it doesn't counter tactical elements of the game. A panzer unit gaining the feature that prevents it from being ambushed would add unique flavour as well, without it being a comical advantage.

Youre right. This playthrough, i play with killable heroes and elite repl. only 3 times allowed. Additionally only one hero on a unit allowed. And most important its not allowed to split units for free. So my heroes are much less mighty, because there are no killer combos. I dont have the problem of too many heroes because they die. And much less prestige because splitting of units doesnt work, so capturing is much more difficult.

All of that leads to the old tactical panzer general feeling. No overstrenght units that cost no slots and fire 2 times. No super flak and heroes die constantly. I am shocked that galland survived spain.

[dukeiii]

mac version (ARM processor)

I play PzC2 on my MacBook Pro M3.
I use the Porting Kit. It is a little complicated to get it to work, but it does work.

I've been using Parallels Desktop on a M1 iMac. Have you ever tried this approach?
Is the performance better through the porting kit?

[dukeiii]

Scale back the scope and potency of the hero system, and put some back into the awards system. A slightly more aggressive scale in units' killing and defensive metrics. It's roughly 10-15% now, could be more with all that experience and kill counts. It could help address the balance between
- overpowering heroes and overwhelming amount / insanely tough opponents
- The fire-fighter-like core units and almost useless auxiliary units without heroes, especially infantry types.

Also, for the award system
- The hard kill points should include all "hard targets", not limited to tank kills. Those SU-122/152s are significantly tougher opponents than T-34s or Shermans in most cases.
- The soft kill points should include all "soft targets", not limited to infantry kills, following the same logic.
- The anti-air guns should have aircraft kills

[adiekmann]

The anti-air guns should have aircraft kills

I have wondered why this was not the case for many years now. Why can't they get +1/2/3 Air Attack awards?

[DefiantXYX]

I have wondered why this was not the case for many years now. Why can't they get +1/2/3 Air Attack awards?

Someone once told me it could be problematic with the different kind of AA units, some of them have multipliers (1,5x/2,0x) and low stats.
4 AA * 2 = 8
5 AA * 2 = 10
Thats a plus of 20% for a single award.

Not sure about that, I have no problems with these awards

[TurulMurul]

It could use the same campaign system as in the second game. I really like the alternate history style — in the second one, the Germans were winning on every front and I loved that. In the historical campaigns, I also enjoyed that you could actually achieve the set objectives — like Moscow, Kursk, or Normandy. You could capture Moscow, take Kursk, or even repel the Normandy landings on those maps, but then the next campaign would still start with the Germans having lost at Moscow. I’d love to see this campaign system stay in the future too.

[dukeiii]

I have wondered why this was not the case for many years now. Why can't they get +1/2/3 Air Attack awards?

Someone once told me it could be problematic with the different kind of AA units, some of them have multipliers (1,5x/2,0x) and low stats.
4 AA * 2 = 8
5 AA * 2 = 10
Thats a plus of 20% for a single award.

Not sure about that, I have no problems with these awards

From the combat log, the rate of fire was a multiplier for the number of shots. I'm not clear about the kill/defense/shots algorithm and the exact impact on the result. But the "blown out of proportion" argument exists in every category when 1.5x or 2x heroes get assigned.
Don't punish the flak team

[DefiantXYX]

From the combat log, the rate of fire was a multiplier for the number of shots.

True, you are right my math was wrong, but if you calculate it correctly it could be even worse
Still, I dont see the problem with the awards. There are more game breaking things like that.