A Case for Upgrades

[Obsolete]

A Case for Upgrades

This is one very important economics/mechanic of any PG clone, and I think a special thread is warranted here.

As mentioned elsewhere, the current situation makes it a horrendous proposition to ever upgrade a unit. There is a rare exception, in that if you have too much prestige to burn, and no more unit slots then an argument MAY be made here. But if that is a common practice, then it is most likely that something in the game has not been properly balanced very well.

I have noticed in the last release that upgrading a Tiger I to a King costs only 200. Is this just a test bed of new upgrading mechanics? Upgrading any other tank to a Tiger costs the same amount as simply purchasing a new Tiger. So why would one do this, when your PzIII for example will not just lose 100 exp in doing so, but now you are still only stuck with 1 unit instead of 2?

I would like some more of the PG vets to give some input on this. I haven’t quite seen the type of response yet that I was hoping for on this subject.

It should be kept in mind that upgrades (and experience) are always two key elements to any PG game, and they also have a lot to do with ‘addiction factors’, amongst other things.

It should be noted, currently there is no incentive what-so-ever to purchase any tank other than a Tiger, Panther, or King. This was not the case in the predecessor. It is true that other Pz units were very weak for general purposes (barring IVDs at the time), however, due to:

• * Over-Runs
  * Decent upgrade mechanic

These two elements cause the player to even try to make very good use out of even the poorest unit they were given.
Panzer Corps simply lacks these elements, and it is quite hurting the whole campaign system, among other things.

[Razz1]

I think you are contradicting yourself.

Upgrading is suppose to penalize a player so, it is better to keep what you have.

This will prevent players from upgrading only to Panthers and Tigers.

[apanzerfan]

It should be noted, currently there is no incentive what-so-ever to purchase any tank other than a Tiger, Panther, or King. This was not the case in the predecessor.

What was incentive in the predecessors? I am asking this as a PG Vet.

Everyone used only Panthers (G) and 1-2 Ktigers during last missions.

Btw, I always had 1-2 PzIVs, I liked their appearance

[skarczew]

It should be noted, currently there is no incentive what-so-ever to purchase any tank other than a Tiger, Panther, or King. This was not the case in the predecessor.

What was incentive in the predecessors? I am asking this as a PG Vet.

Everyone used only Panthers (G) and 1-2 Ktigers during last missions.

Btw, I always had 1-2 PzIVs, I liked their appearance

In PG Panters were decent as a replacement for Tiger, but Kings were crap.
Four movement tank in Blitzkrieg?

In my opinion costs of purchases / upgrades should reflect original values (in Reichsmarks from WWII).
Balance between units also needs to be adjusted, as far as I checked last PzC beta.

[apanzerfan]

Ktigers' movement were indeed restricted, but a 5-star, 15-strength Ktiger was an indestructible monster.
Neither supporting artillery, nor the defending infantry couldnt hurt 'em

I always had 1-2 among my core units, they were ideal to help my cloggep up units.

[skarczew]

Ktigers' movement were indeed restricted, but a 5-star, 15-strength Ktiger was an indestructible monster.
Neither supporting artillery, nor the defending infantry couldnt hurt 'em

I always had 1-2 among my core units, they were ideal to help my cloggep up units.

For clearing I used self-propelled TD - quite cheap, mobile and highly effective.
Attacking entrenched infantry with tanks is a request for Close Defense closterfuck .

Oh yeah, another wonder was JagdTiger - I equipped one pretty rookie unit with them in Washington, for tests. Their wives must have been very thankful - I don't remember any casualties caused by them, or inflicted to yankees. Too slow even for mopping service.

[apanzerfan]

Yes-yes, those Jagdtigers were only useful on defensive scenarios. They were like Maus in PzC


But, I still have the question
"What was incentive in the predecessors? I am asking this as a PG Vet."

[OmegaMan1]

I think "incremental" upgrades (such as moving up to the next letter grade in panzer or aircraft classes) should be realtively lower-cost events since this represents small improvements that don't radically alter the unit in question. However, when upgrading to a much higher-level unit (particularly the more experimental ones, like the Maus), the cost should be higher since this reflects the "core" unit having to adapt to a newer model of vehicle, aircraft, etc. Thus moving from, say, a Panzer II to a King Tiger should be a fairly expensive move, since the crews would be operating an "unfamiliar" weapon. Whereas, moving from a Panzer II to a Panzer III should not be nearly as expensive, since the models are closer in function and operation. I guess the main question is, what is a fair "upgrade" price in such instances, and what is the appropriate penalty (if any) to experience when upgrading.

[Razz1]

^ hopefully they can implement that.

[Rudankort]

^ hopefully they can implement that.

What exactly?

[Panzer3L]

I guess the main question is, what is a fair "upgrade" price in such instances, and what is the appropriate penalty (if any) to experience when upgrading.

I think the main question is what is the reason for this "upgrade loss"-feature.

I don't think the higher costs realy matter,at least not for custom campaigns.
If the campaign designer knows about the higher costs for unit upgrade's,he will just take that
into his considerations when he's fine tweaking the prestidge settings for his campaign and will
increase the available prestidge accordingly.

What realy matters is the XP loss when upgrading.

Now if the reason for this feature is to prevent people from having Panthers and Tiger only in their core
in the 1944-45 scenarios,then it won't work.I would always upgrade a 15strenght Panzer 4H into a Panther even
if i end up with "only" a 14 strenght Panther.

If this feature should take care of the problem that units (specially tanks,infantry and Airplanes's)gain XP way to fast atm,
then this feature may help a little bit.

If this feature is meant to bring in more realism (getting used to a unfamilliar weapon)then its kinda"fair"in some example's (like Panzer2 to KingTiger)but unfair in some other situations (like upgrading from a Panzer 4F2 to a Panzer 4 G).
But its still not realistic unless upgrading from a Pz2 to a KingTiger costs u all XP because very few German 1939 Pz2 tankers lived long enough to ever see a KingTiger...


As for Gameplay this feature, as it is atm, may be ok for tanks,infantry and Plane's,but for slow XP gaining units like AD Arty it will be quite hard if u lose 100XP as soon as u upgrade especially in the 1939-43 scenarios.

Bringing in a "dynamic" XP loss would be technicly easy to implement i think (for example Pz2 to KingTiger costs u more XP as Pz4F2 to Pz4G),but it would be close to impossible to find a fair overall rule for all the nations and unit classes.



Just my 2cents

[skarczew]

^ hopefully they can implement that.

What exactly?

I think Razz meant that upgrading from Me-109E to Me-109K should be cheaper than from Me-109E to Fw-190D.

[Razz1]

^ hopefully they can implement that.

What exactly?

I think "incremental" upgrades (such as moving up to the next letter grade in panzer or aircraft classes) should be realtively lower-cost events since this represents small improvements that don't radically alter the unit in question.

[apanzerfan]

I think "incremental" upgrades (such as moving up to the next letter grade in panzer or aircraft classes) should be realtively lower-cost events since this represents small improvements that don't radically alter the unit in question.

good point there. always hated upgrading me109e-s to f-s or g-s for 350 ponts. it was kinda unbalanced.




and about slowing down the exp gaining:
in the original PG, you could gain enough experience for washington only if you started a 39 campaign.
starting a 41, or even a 43 campaign, would result in unexperienced units against those highclass experienced US units, resulting in a loss.

[Obsolete]

Upgrading is suppose to penalize a player so, it is better to keep what you have.

I can't make any sense out of that. No matter how many times I read it.

Anyhow, I forgot to add that there are two versions of core units in PG, one is restricted by the Jensen cap, and the other is immune. I'm not sure on what kind of caps are in place in Panzer Corps just yet. Maybe its just as simple as one type of core, and one type of aux.

In any case, a PzIII with immunity would be more valuable than even a Tiger which was not. This was a big reason why no one wanted to dare risk losing that PzIII.

[apanzerfan]

lolwut?

what kind of immunity?


jensen cap? who is he? what is that?
are you talking about him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter ... CAP%29.jpg

[Razz1]

^ me too!

[Obsolete]

Grrrrr. I thought we were supposed to be all PG vets here!

I can't explain it all in one post, but do a search on PG2 Jensen Cap, or Prestige cap, this is rather a basic but IMPORTANT campaign element.

[Razz1]

we already have a bonus for completing a scenario in a campaign.

You haven't noticed?

[IainMcNeil]

This is definitely not a PG veterans beta test. All opinions welcome