Core units carried along throughout the campaign?

Szabtom · Post by **Szabtom** » Tue May 31, 2011 8:58 am

Hi,

I have just read the preview on Wargamer: http://www.wargamer.com/article/3033/panzer-corps. The article says

Feeding and care of units are vital in any battle and essential for the player’s core units that will be carried along throughout the campaign.

I recall a developer comment from earlier specifically stating this will not be implemented because it causes imbalance in the campaign (veterans could have uber armies steamrolling later maps while newbies would have difficulties from mid-game due to less experienced units). For me the story and development of the units provide immersion and this is a pivotal point.

Is the preview correct and we can carry units through the campaign?

adherbal · Post by **adherbal** » Tue May 31, 2011 9:32 am

Yes, unit carry-over is one of the core features of the gameplay.

Szabtom · Post by **Szabtom** » Tue May 31, 2011 9:38 am

Wow, that is great! Can we know how the team managed the challenge of balancing the maps, the AI unit strength/expereince and the AI strategy in later scenarios?

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Tue May 31, 2011 11:41 am

"(veterans could have uber armies steamrolling later maps while newbies would have difficulties from mid-game due to less experienced units). "

I thought any game by default should be much easier for a verteran, and much more harder for a newbie.

What revolution did I miss in the gaming world that changed all that?

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Tue May 31, 2011 12:01 pm

The issue in PG was that you got more prestige for a big win and less for a small win, ending up with a snow ball effect, making the good players army have more presitge and find tehnext scenario easier and easier.

We're rewarding the player in other ways. Quick victories open up new campaign paths, but do nto earn you extra prestige. We're even considering making it give you less. This way those doing well would find the game getting harder, and those finding it hard will find it getting easier. Its a form of auto balancing to ensure everyone has fun playing the game.

Szabtom · Post by **Szabtom** » Tue May 31, 2011 12:39 pm

Ian,
so instead of trying to predict the exp curve and the probable level of the player's units (which the original PG tried and failed), the game will offer optional scenarios to "burn" the excess veteran units? What would be the incentive for the player to risk his elites? Plus he may end up with even more exp.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Tue May 31, 2011 1:22 pm

They are not optional - its a different path through the campaign. If you want to conquer the US you'll need decisive Victories or this path will not occur.

pupski · Post by **pupski** » Tue May 31, 2011 2:44 pm

And I just came across the situation where you could only deploy part of your core units in a scenario. You have to choose which units will be useful an at the same time which units are able to grow in that scenario. I took a Tank heavy army so part of my infantry stayed in reserve and didn't earn experience. Hope that will not be a problem in the next scenario. When a Core unit is killed you get the opportunity to field a unit from your reserves at the deployment zone from the start of the game. I like it..

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Tue May 31, 2011 11:58 pm

iainmcneil wrote:The issue in PG was that you got more prestige for a big win and less for a small win, ending up with a snow ball effect, making the good players army have more presitge and find tehnext scenario easier and easier.

We're rewarding the player in other ways. Quick victories open up new campaign paths, but do not earn you extra prestige. We're even considering making it give you less. This way those doing well would find the game getting harder, and those finding it hard will find it getting easier. Its a form of auto balancing to ensure everyone has fun playing the game.

Iain, are decisive victories soley determined on how many turns it takes to capture all the objectives? or is it a combo of that and a loss/kill ratio?? I ask since you could theoretically go for/obtain decisive victories timewise but lose valuable core units in the process...... and then get hosed by less prestige because you are doing "too good"
I always found PG challenging/rewarding in this area and I guess i dont necasarily agree with this aproach.. ie the goal to "balance" the game relative to players skills no matter what you accomplish each scenario.. Would it not be "better" (or at least simpler) to increase/decrease the challenge by simply giving the AI more prestige at higher levels of difficlty , less turns etc? (which is what the original did) I never experianced the snow ball effect people are talking about, maybe because i tried different force compositions every time I fired up a new campaign. Would hate this aspect to lead into a puzzlelike element of gameplay. Wait, dont sent that Mark 3 into that last V hex this turn because we'll have to fight a really tough battle next turn without reinforcements, for petes sake, take it next turn Oberst!

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:27 am

Its all being tested and balanced at the moment so we'll make sure it all fits together nicely however it works!

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:18 pm

iainmcneil wrote:Its all being tested and balanced at the moment so we'll make sure it all fits together nicely however it works!

Ah, the old "trust us" answer,

, no issues, I do , cant wait til this arrives, cheers!