Idea on Difficulty Settings and Making Supply Cost Prestige

[AgentX]

I like the new difficulty settings, though I hear you may drop the names of Generals in favor of using all traditional ranks. However, I believe the easiest settings are way too easy, while the hardest settings are a little too hard (those 5 star, 15 strength armies are brutal). I thought of a little tweak to the settings that you may like to consider.

Sergeant: Easiest setting, enemy has 8 strength. *Other Possibility: enemy has 9 and you have 11 strength
Lieutenant: 2nd easiest, enemy has 9 strength.
Colonel: Default setting, enemy and you both have 10 strength.
General: Enemy has 11 strength, you have 10 strength.
Field Marshall: Enemy has 11 strength, you have 9 strength.
Guderian: Enemy has 12 strength, you have 9 strength.
Manstein: Enemy has 12 strength, you have 8 strength.
Rommel: Enemy has 13 strength, you have 8 strength.

So, the easiest settings become just a little harder while the harder difficulty settings are a bit more manageable. The effective difference on the harder settings is the same: for example Rommel still has a 5 strength differential between you and the AI. The difference is you can have the option of trading Prestige to get your units up to full strength making Prestige management even more important, especially in the early stages of a campaign. As a further consideration, you might try adding Supply to the actions that require Prestige. So, on the higher difficulty settings, supplying your units will cost Prestige (everything else does: new units, reinforcements, upgrades....why not supply?). Have a set resupply cost of something like 5 Prestige starting at the General level. Then, increase it gradually each level, so that at the Rommel level it's like 20 prestige to resupply any unit. You can tweak the exact formula, but these two things would make Prestige even more valuable while also gradually increasing the difficulty level.

[AgentX]

On second thought, maybe weakening your strength isn't the answer and adding supply costs is the way to do it instead. So, this could be another possible way of doing the difficulty settings:

Sergeant: Easiest setting, enemy has 8 strength. *Other Possibility: enemy has 9 and you have 11 strength.
Lieutenant: 2nd easiest, enemy has 9 strength.
Colonel: Default setting, enemy and you both have 10 strength. **
General: Enemy has 11 strength, you have 10 strength and Supplies cost 5 Prestige.
Field Marshall: Enemy has 11 strength and Supplies cost 10 Prestige.
Guderian: Enemy has 12 strength and Supplies cost 10 Prestige.
Manstein: Enemy has 12 strength and Supplies cost 15 Prestige.
Rommel: Enemy has 13 strength and Supplies cost 15 Prestige.

**Could add the 5 Prestige Supply cost to the Default Colonel setting as well.

Also, if a flat-rate Supply cost doesn't sound appropriate, it could be set at a percentage of the unit's purchase cost (plus any upgrades) and would represent a unit's upkeep costs. For instance, at the General level, Supplies would cost you 5% of the unit's cost (200 Prestige unit cost = 10 Prestige Supply upkeep costs). Then, it could increase to 10% for the Field Marshall and Guderian levels and 15% at the Manstein and Rommel levels.

[Rudankort]

I was specifically asked to provide an easy level for casual players out there, and I did this. I'm not going to make it harder than now, why would I want to do so? Veteran players will never play on it in any case, they have plenty of other levels to choose from, and for newbies who just want to roll through all historical battles and feel themselves great generals easy level is just what is needed. It will still punish you for wrong decisions, but due to weaker enemy units and lots of player's prestige this punishment will never be severe.

As for high levels, I have some thoughts how to make them right too. I agree that in its current form Rommel is quite hard, although it was intended specifically for people who constantly complain about "too easy campaign".

As for supply, I don't think that we really need that cost prestige. On one hand, it will cause some changes in game mechanics. Thus, now all idle units resupply automatically, but if it costs you, you will have to do this manually which means more micromanagement and routine work. On the other hand, supply is a rather marginal game concept, and I don't see why we may possibly need it for balancing difficulty, when we already have balancing modifiers for several more important concepts - prestige, experience, strength and turn count (this is what existing difficulty levels use now).

[IainMcNeil]

The easy level needs to stay easy

You guys forget how much expereince you have of teh game and how it is hard for a new comer to get in to some of the concepts you take for granted.

Allowing a player to change the diffficulty mid campaign would be good then you can rise the difficulty bar as you find it too easy to get a good challenge. Not necessary in mission, only between missions.

If Rommel is almost impossible that is ok - we dont want to make the hardest difficulty one that most people can beat.

[Steakenglisch]

Maybe its a fine idea to implement a mouse over text for each difficult level wich explains it? Makes it easier to choose the right level?

[Rudankort]

Maybe its a fine idea to implement a mouse over text for each difficult level wich explains it? Makes it easier to choose the right level?

I could do that, but without actual playing experience you are unlikely to pick the right level anyway. If you know that you have 80% prestige and your opponent has 150%, it does not really tell you anything - you don't know base values to which these modifiers are applied in the first place.

[Rudankort]

Allowing a player to change the diffficulty mid campaign would be good then you can rise the difficulty bar as you find it too easy to get a good challenge. Not necessary in mission, only between missions.

One question is, how to calculate campaign score in this case (when we have the score that is )?

[Steakenglisch]

Okay but dont you think that the different data ...80% ... 100% .... 150% etc. gives you (the player) a better idea?
By the way it was only a proposal

[Rudankort]

Okay but dont you think that the different data ...80% ... 100% .... 150% etc. gives you (the player) a better idea?
By the way it was only a proposal

Yes I know, just thinking out loud. Of course 80% - 100% - 150% gives you some idea, but, as I said, you will need to try a few levels before you can find the right one for you anyway.

[pstamatis]

In my opinion, these dificulty levels scale well but changing the default unit size is not my favorite.
I would prefer different prestige policies or a smaller number of core slots per level or the base XP on purchase (brand new units with 0 XP are almost incapable on the late scenarios). Also, I think playing playing with equal unit sizes (Coloner), the balance changes very dramaticaly from 44 and after.

Speaking of unit size, Soviet units could be bigger (especially inf) and with lower quality (e.g similar to Flames of War), but I guess discussing this on 0.99 is a bit late.

[Kerensky]

In my opinion, these dificulty levels scale well but changing the default unit size is not my favorite.
I would prefer different prestige policies or a smaller number of core slots per level or the base XP on purchase (brand new units with 0 XP are almost incapable on the late scenarios). Also, I think playing playing with equal unit sizes (Coloner), the balance changes very dramaticaly from 44 and after.

Speaking of unit size, Soviet units could be bigger (especially inf) and with lower quality (e.g similar to Flames of War), but I guess discussing this on 0.99 is a bit late.

Conscripts work this way. Base 15 strength, terrible stats.

[Razz1]

HAY!
.........Stop criticizing my Russian Army!

Our comrades fight hard and deserve their Vodka.