Prestige

[Razz1]

I disagree as unit cost are still not balanced.

It is 76 points for prestige for a Tiger 1.

When you add too much prestige per turn player just Spam chaeap units like artillery and infantry.

I have seen this in MP.

Personally I was hoping the prestige for killing units was reduced by 50%. Instead it has been eliminated.

With cost increase in German units. I don't think we need to decrease the award anymore.

[Kerensky]

I think a compromise is in order.

Bring back prestige for killing units. Restrict it according to class.

Killing 1 strength of any infantry unit, conscript or SS HW, will net the player who did the damage the same amount of prestige.
Killing 1 strength of any tank unit, PZ IA or King Tiger, will net the player who did the damage the same amount of prestige.

So if someone floods the field with a whole lot of cheap junk, they're going to be 'feeding' their opponent all kinds of prestige. This should help discourage swarm tactics, because you don't want your opponent to be fed all kinds of bonus prestige, so players will instead focus on quality units instead of quantity.

Thoughts?

As a possible control mechanism, this static amount can be reconfigured on a scenario by scenario basis through the editor.
Poland may look like:
Any Infantry: 1 prestige per strength
Any Tank: 3 prestige per strength
Any Artillery: 5 prestige per strength

Ardennes may look like:
Any Infantry: 5 prestige per strength
Any Tank: 10 prestige per strength
Any Artillery: 8 prestige per strength

[Razz1]

Prestige award should not be 5 points per strength point. That is way too much. It should be 1 point or 2 points of prestige.

I vote for two points of prestige per strength point across the board.

[Dragoon24]

I agree with the idea but the points do need some tweaking/experimentation.

[tnourie]

Prestige should be awarded for destroying units, not strength points. Say 25 per unit destroyed, or more, depending on the players choice of strength settings (Seargent, Lt., Col., etc)

[OmegaMan1]

Bring back prestige for killing units, implement a scale where (Unit type) + (Experience Level) = Prestige earned. Earnings should be based on unit kills, as getting points for reducing units could lead to "double dipping" (i.e., injuring a unit, letting it replenish, injuring it again to a "1," letting it rebuild, etc.).

Besides, simple logic would say that, if the "currency" of PzC is prestige, that comes as a reward for performing well in the field... and performing well means both capturing OR holding objectives, depending on the situation. Rewarding prestige for taking cities/airfields in an offensive situation is fine, but when holding objectives against an attacker (Bagration, Overlord, any Germany scenario), the reward should be reflected in how many units you eliminate. It's the same as being told by HQ, "Well general, you've destroyed 20 enemy units trying to take your city, but you didn't capture any cities yourself so no prestige for you."

[Iscaran]

One could make a certain incentive for destroying a unit based on unit cost ?
Say 5% of unit cost for example ?

I think some kind of reward for killing units would be a good thing.

[Steakenglisch]

Bring back prestige for killing units, implement a scale where (Unit type) + (Experience Level) = Prestige earned. Earnings should be based on unit kills, as getting points for reducing units could lead to "double dipping" (i.e., injuring a unit, letting it replenish, injuring it again to a "1," letting it rebuild, etc.).

Besides, simple logic would say that, if the "currency" of PzC is prestige, that comes as a reward for performing well in the field... and performing well means both capturing OR holding objectives, depending on the situation. Rewarding prestige for taking cities/airfields in an offensive situation is fine, but when holding objectives against an attacker (Bagration, Overlord, any Germany scenario), the reward should be reflected in how many units you eliminate. It's the same as being told by HQ, "Well general, you've destroyed 20 enemy units trying to take your city, but you didn't capture any cities yourself so no prestige for you."

Yes i agree with this

[IainMcNeil]

It makes it very hard to balance the campaign if we do this. It means the better you do the more prestige you get which means better players get more and find thenext mission easier., so kill more and it gets easier and easier. The reverse is true for people who struggle.

For gameplay reasons I think this is a bad idea.

We need to reward players in other ways such as medals, awards etc, not prestige.

[rjh1971]

For defensive scenarios how about giving prestige for holding key cities for a period of turns? This could reflect the morale going up when holding up your enemy or more reinforcements arriving with the use of prestige points. Just an idea.

[Xitax]

It makes it very hard to balance the campaign if we do this. It means the better you do the more prestige you get which means better players get more and find thenext mission easier., so kill more and it gets easier and easier. The reverse is true for people who struggle.

For gameplay reasons I think this is a bad idea.

We need to reward players in other ways such as medals, awards etc, not prestige.

Concur with this x1000! Thanks for holding the ground on this point....

[OmegaMan1]

It makes it very hard to balance the campaign if we do this. It means the better you do the more prestige you get which means better players get more and find thenext mission easier., so kill more and it gets easier and easier. The reverse is true for people who struggle.

Ian, I do see your point here and concur. Perhaps a compromise then would be to allow prestige for kills in situations where the player is on the defensive? I think it might be that prestige for kills is better for multiplayer scenarios (where the players only are worried about one game), while using other rewards as you mentioned in the campaign setting. Either way, I do think there is room for compromise, I guess the question will be if it is implimented before or after the game's final release.

BTW, I think this is a good idea, as suggested above:

For defensive scenarios how about giving prestige for holding key cities for a period of turns? This could reflect the morale going up when holding up your enemy or more reinforcements arriving with the use of prestige points. Just an idea.

[chief]

Speaking of "DEFENSIVE", if a unit while on the offensive takes a shellacking, putting it in a "DEFENSIVE" position (ie: entrenced) would be nice. Could not find a way to do this. Did I miss something ?

[Razz1]

Are we going to have a slider under the Replacement icons?

One for regulars and one for elites?

It would be nice to choose how much to reinforce each unit.

Currently it is all or nothing.

Each click on the slider would allow 1 strength point.

Prestige is limited and it would be very functional for a player to reinforce three units 1 strength point in place of the all or nothing.

[El_Condoro]

Are we going to have a slider under the Replacement icons?

One for regulars and one for elites?

It would be nice to choose how much to reinforce each unit.

Currently it is all or nothing.

Each click on the slider would allow 1 strength point.

Prestige is limited and it would be very functional for a player to reinforce three units 1 strength point in place of the all or nothing.

This is a great idea - one of the things I sorely wanted in PG2. Being able to allocate strength points rather than all or nothing would be a huge enhancement IMO.

[Kerensky]

I don't understand, explain it to me?

Why would you ever a system that ultimately results in needing to spent multiple turns slowly strengthening a unit?

If your argument is that 'I have a custom campaign or scenario with critically short prestige and I want the player to have to carefully manage his sub-100 prestige'.

So you have your Tiger I and you have 5 other units, you give your Tiger I 1 reinforcement, and everyone else gets 2-3 reinforcements. You spread your minimal prestige around instead of lumping it all on one unit who will eat as much as it can.

You're telling me that reinforcing 6 units with 1-3 strength is a good idea? That's 6 moves and 6 attacks lost, for barely even a net gain of 10 strength between all 6 units. The fact so many of your units are now standing around idle as they get minimal reinforcements is going to be more damaging to your ability to fight and win the scenario than any 'limiting' prestige setting is going to be.

Low strength units who are still active are immensely valuable. They mop up even weaker enemy units so you don't waste a 10 strength unit to finish off a 2 strength unit, or they can be used to capture cities and objectives, again freeing your 10 strength units to continue the fight instead of spending their turn to sit on a hex and flip the flag.

[El_Condoro]

Why would you ever a system that ultimately results in needing to spent multiple turns slowly strengthening a unit?

Not necessarily - you can still take units up to full strength if you want to but you have the choice of spreading the prestige around. e.g. You have 200 prestige points available and there are 3 areas on the map where you need to use them. You know a Tiger on 3 points will probably hold if its brought up to 5 points, an artillery unit in the centre is a bit low on points, too and an infantry unit in another place is stretched but should hold with a bit of help. Currently, you might be able to reinforce the Tiger up to full and maybe part of another. The ability to spread the prestige would allow the player to allocate the points where they're needed much as in 'reality'. I have not used real figures and this is a defensive example but an attacking example works the same.
To alleviate unnecessary mouse clicking it would be necessary to have a 'Bring to full strength' button - otherwise bringing a 1 strength unit to 10 strength would require 9 clicks - obviously a pain in the neck.
I hope I have explained this well enough - it's how I see it anyway. Razz1?

[Kerensky]

I can only see this being maybe useful in scenarios where prestige is absolutely minimal, but even then I wouldn't use it. Too many individual unit turns lost applying small reinforcement amounts. I'd rather dump all of it on singular units to bring them to 10, and use everyone else as mop up or city capture duty.

For this idea to have any traction at all, it would require an incredibly finely tuned scenario and map specifically designed with this feature in mind. Show us that map and prove the value of the function, but even then possibility for implementation is very low. There are simply too many other 'nice to haves' which are 'nice to have' in any and every scenario, not just extremely tightly tuned ones.

[El_Condoro]

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I would use this in almost every scenario. Not all the time every turn, but in the course of almost every scenario. It's worth discussing, I think, though.

[Kerensky]

Of course by all means, discussion is fine.