PzC Toolkit v2.0.5.1 - Classic General v0.12.1 (18/10/26)

[RobertCL]

Hi Nico,

At the end of a scenario when I move to a next one, why can't I grant extra strength to my elite units ?
In Panzer Corps, before starting a scenario, in reserve, before my deployment, I can replenish my units and bring them to 12 or 13 strength for instance.
If we have to wait until the scenario starts, the unit either moves or gets extra strength. If we do this in the reserve screen before deployment, units are moving fully "extra replenished".

[nikivdd]

Hi Nico,

At the end of a scenario when I move to a next one, why can't I grant extra strength to my elite units ?
In Panzer Corps, before starting a scenario, in reserve, before my deployment, I can replenish my units and bring them to 12 or 13 strength for instance.
If we have to wait until the scenario starts, the unit either moves or gets extra strength. If we do this in the reserve screen before deployment, units are moving fully "extra replenished".

overstrength.png (1.09 MiB) Viewed 102 times

[nikivdd]

With experience, everything is clear, except for the low rate of gaining experience with tactical bombers and level Bombers.
I'm more interested in why tactical bombers are so ineffective.
Conversely, artillery is too effective, but it is slowly gaining experience.
By the way, recon is generally a pretty useless thing due to the presence of many aircraft with a large reconnaissance radius.
And I am generally silent about the extremely low rate of gaining experience by naval units.

In general, I really look forward to when you change the same effectiveness of tactical bombers as it is in the PG Forever game or at least Panzer Corps.

The game is really cool, but all these points overshadow the impression, especially the effectiveness of tactical bombers.

That's worth further investigation and implementation.

Assume a tactical bomber makes 10 combat rolls against a ground unit, with equal attack and defense grades and no additional modifiers.
Result Old system New system (proposed)
Chance of a kill 10% 50%
Chance of suppression 40% 0%
Chance of no effect 50% 50%
Expected enemy strength losses 1 5
Expected suppression points 4 0

What this means in battle
Previously: A tactical bomber could attack a tank and cause one strength-point loss while suppressing another four points. The tank might survive with most of its actual strength intact.

With the proposed change: The same attack would produce an average of five strength-point losses and no suppression, assuming the other combat conditions remain identical.

That means:
- Tactical bombers become much more dangerous to enemy tanks, artillery and other ground formations.
- Their attacks inflict permanent strength losses rather than temporary suppression.
- They should gain experience faster because they destroy more enemy strength points.

Artillery: powerful suppression, limited XP rewards

Artillery benefits from indirect-fire rules, defensive support and suppression. Yet its experience gains depend mainly on casualties.

My proposed values are 1 base XP per effectively suppressed strength point, capped at 5 base XP per attack.

Naval experience — proposed improvement

I agree that naval units deserve a more specialized experience system. Battleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines and carriers perform different roles, and their XP progression should reflect those differences.

I propose retaining the existing casualty-based XP calculation and adding modest rewards for meaningful naval combat actions.
Proposed XP bonuses
Naval combat activity Additional base XP
Surface ship inflicts enemy strength losses +2 per successful attack
Submarine scores a successful torpedo hit +4 per attack
Naval unit successfully damages an enemy aircraft with AA fire +2 per engagement
Naval gunfire effectively suppresses an enemy unit +1 per suppressed strength point

Safeguards
- Maximum additional bonus: 6 base XP per combat engagement.
- Apply existing experience-star multipliers.
- Retain the 599 XP maximum and five-star progression.
- Award bonuses only for actual combat results, not unsuccessful attacks.
- Prevent repeated rewards for the same damage or suppression.
- Apply the same rules to human and AI units.
- Keep current naval combat damage and hit probabilities unchanged.

The spotting range for certain aircraft is way too high, this i am going to correct. I will think about making recon vehicles more interesting besides its phased movement

[Kas Narayda]

At the moment, the most profitable thing is to buy one artillery, anti-aircraft guns and infantry.
By the way, there is no penalty for rivers, tanks in the forest are like on a plain, there are no bonuses from the terrain either. There are no bonuses or penalties from the enemy's environment.
The terrain does not change color depending on the weather.
In general, the game is very raw and unbalanced. I'll come back a little later when they finish.

The best combat mechanics in PG Forever and of course Panzer Corps.
In the meantime, it's more profitable to buy artillery than tactical bombers. Level Bomber is not worth your money at all, it's a waste of money.

[nikivdd]

At the moment, the most profitable thing is to buy one artillery, anti-aircraft guns and infantry.
By the way, there is no penalty for rivers, tanks in the forest are like on a plain, there are no bonuses from the terrain either. There are no bonuses or penalties from the enemy's environment.
The terrain does not change color depending on the weather.
In general, the game is very raw and unbalanced. I'll come back a little later when they finish.

The best combat mechanics in PG Forever and of course Panzer Corps.
In the meantime, it's more profitable to buy artillery than tactical bombers. Level Bomber is not worth your money at all, it's a waste of money.

I did a comparison study.
The next update will use more of Panzer Corps mechanics.

[bondjamesbond]

At the moment, the most profitable thing is to buy one artillery, anti-aircraft guns and infantry.
By the way, there is no penalty for rivers, tanks in the forest are like on a plain, there are no bonuses from the terrain either. There are no bonuses or penalties from the enemy's environment.
The terrain does not change color depending on the weather.
In general, the game is very raw and unbalanced. I'll come back a little later when they finish.

The best combat mechanics in PG Forever and of course Panzer Corps.
In the meantime, it's more profitable to buy artillery than tactical bombers. Level Bomber is not worth your money at all, it's a waste of money.

I did a comparison study.
The next update will use more of Panzer Corps mechanics.

Я бы не торопился и не спешил с выводами все требует экспериментов и тестов ! Например мне очень нравиться механика что можно подвести свои подразделения на машинах или бтрах или артиллерию они могут сразу вступить еще в бой это реально ! Так же мне нравиться на участках где есть ваша артиллерия враг леко не прорвется так как артиллерия при обороне и наступлении должна выполнять свою функцию подавления и уничтожения противника ! Иначе зачем в реалии на один квадратный километр фронта порой ставили до 100 разных калибров ствольной артиллерии и системы реактивного огня !Например такая механика идеальна для Первой мировой войны где пулеметы и пушки свели на нет роль кавалерии и пехоты просто сметая ее при наступлении на траншеи и доты ! Но и роль танков тоже нужно понимать которые танковыми клиньями должны были уходить в прорыв что бы выйти в тыл к штабам и сладам перерезав коммуникации и логистику ! Так же в такие рейды выдвигались кавалерия например у ссср ! Десант и партизаны же должны были действовать в тылу так же оттягивая на себя действие противника !Остальное да нужно дорабатывать так как удары авиации слабы и господство в в воздухе не приносит своих результатов ! Местность и ландшафт как и погода тоже должны давать = как обороняющимся так и наступающим ! Так что я за симбиоз правил из Панзер корпс и механики Панзер генерал ! Ведь каждая серия этих игр имеет как свои плюсы так и минусы ! Например графика панзер корпса радует глаза а вот панзер генерала их выжигает !


I wouldn’t rush into anything or jump to conclusions – everything needs to be tested and trialled! For example, I really like the mechanic where you can bring in your units in vehicles, armoured personnel carriers or artillery – they can immediately join the fight; that’s really cool! I also like the fact that in sectors where your artillery is deployed, the enemy won’t easily break through, as artillery—whether in defence or on the offensive—must fulfil its role of suppressing and destroying the enemy! Otherwise, why would they, in reality, sometimes deploy up to 100 different calibres of barrel artillery and rocket systems per square kilometre of the front line? For example, this mechanic is ideal for the First World War, where machine guns and artillery rendered the role of cavalry and infantry obsolete, simply sweeping them aside during assaults on trenches and pillboxes! But the role of tanks must also be understood: they were meant to form tank wedges to break through the lines, reach the enemy’s rear—targeting headquarters and supply lines—and cut off communications and logistics! Similarly, cavalry units, such as those of the USSR, would launch such raids! Paratroopers and partisans, meanwhile, were meant to operate behind enemy lines, drawing the enemy’s fire onto themselves! The rest does need refining, as air strikes are weak and air superiority isn’t yielding the desired results! The terrain and landscape, as well as the weather, should also play a part – for both the defenders and the attackers! So I’m in favour of a blend of the rules from *Panzer Corps* and the mechanics of *Panzer General*! After all, each series of these games has its own pros and cons! For example, the graphics in *Panzer Corps* are a feast for the eyes, whereas those in *Panzer General* are a real eyesore!


Ведь гениальность каждого полководца заключается создать абсолютное первородство и концентрация всех родов войск на определенном участке фронта где у противника слабые места для этого и работали разведки и шпионы ) У нас же в битве против ИИ все сводиться к нас мало ресурсы ботов огромны так как он тупой )))

After all, the genius of every military commander lies in creating absolute primacy and concentrating all types of troops on a specific sector of the front, where the enemy has weak points. This is what intelligence and spies were for. ) In our case, in the battle against the AI, everything comes down to the fact that we have few resources, while the bots have vast resources, since it’s stupid. )))
https://waralbum.ru/399518/