"Another way to reduce the effect of the "Perfect Core" could be limiting the amount of high-end units a player (and AI) can obtain. So a player could get 10 Panzer IVs in a scenario, but only 1 King, for example. "
I suggested such an approach weeks ago when still in the beta - but it was rejected to not restrict "players choice" of equipment. Which I also find a valuable goal.
Anyway I am starting to worry about the combat outcomes lately. It seems the prediction is too often too wrong. And the wronginess seems to be quite "one way". You usually get worse results. Not sure if this is intent or if shows that there maybe something wrong with the random numbers being "one way" driven off the statistical average. Which might also be a design option.
Even though I noticed that for example fighters with only 1 HA/SA often make 3 or 4 kills....whilst a Tac with >10HA often does not even dent a tank / or infantry in case of SA.
I fear there is something slighlty "wrong" behind the scenes. But I will be offline for 2 weeks and I did not manage to have more closer looks on all this to make a topic about it.
However IF there is something odd going on the unit balancing discusison from here needs to be postponed.
Another point which I noticed is that in case of "equal" units you often have losses of 0:0 or 1:1 but these quickly slide to extreme results 1:5 or more. Maybe a closer look on "combat values" balancing in terms of the combat rules is better suited instead of changing units stats all around ?
I will have more closer looks on all this in my next games - but perhaps you can have an eye out too.
Tiger II issue
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
I tested it out on Frozen North and built only Tiger II tanks in the beginning of the battle. The first few turns it worked great and I made some ground but then my enemy countered with lots of infantry, anti-tank and some IS2 and artillery and slowly pushed me back. Now five turns before the end I only have two objectives left and do not think that I can win this anymore. But fortunately I found my new favourite crsis solver the Jagdpanther which is in my opinion the best anti-tank unit the germans have.
I also came up with two ideas concerning the issue of only buying the best units.
First idea is to make units like the Tiger II or Maus much more expensive than now for example one Tiger II could cost 2000 prestige and gets cheaper the more common units you buy. So for example the Tiger II could get 100 prestige cheaper for each Panzer IV you buy. But the lowest price should be for example 800 - 900. This would have the effect, that the forces could be more "realistically" mixed and adding some sort of cool tactical decision making of finding the right timing to throw the big one into the fight.
The second idea was to simply copy the system that Warhammer 40K uses with core, elite and so on and devide tanks and planes and so on into such categories. Then you could depending on the scenario cap the amount of elite units which could balance the game adding the nice effect of seeing those Panzer IVs and T34s in action more.
So long
I also came up with two ideas concerning the issue of only buying the best units.
First idea is to make units like the Tiger II or Maus much more expensive than now for example one Tiger II could cost 2000 prestige and gets cheaper the more common units you buy. So for example the Tiger II could get 100 prestige cheaper for each Panzer IV you buy. But the lowest price should be for example 800 - 900. This would have the effect, that the forces could be more "realistically" mixed and adding some sort of cool tactical decision making of finding the right timing to throw the big one into the fight.
The second idea was to simply copy the system that Warhammer 40K uses with core, elite and so on and devide tanks and planes and so on into such categories. Then you could depending on the scenario cap the amount of elite units which could balance the game adding the nice effect of seeing those Panzer IVs and T34s in action more.
So long
Last edited by Boepp on Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If the cost was (Attack) x (Initiative) instead of (Attack) + (Initiative) then you would probably come pretty close to solving all these issues.
(the above equations are obviously very simplistic compared to the real calculations; but I hope my point gets across anyhow) "
"First idea is to make units like the Tiger II or Maus much more expensive than now for example one Tiger II could cost 2000 prestige and gets cheaper the more common units you buy. So for example the Tiger II could get 100 prestige cheaper for each Panzer IV you buy. This would have the effect, that the forces could be more "realistically" mixed and adding some sort of cool tactical decission making of findeing the right timing to through the big one into the fight."
BOTH very interesting ideas...
Somehow I think that the first one might be an easier and faster approach as I see the problem with the 2nd idea that one has to consider ALL units from all parties. And you surealy cant comare T-34 costs to the amount of Tiger IIs in the army...so the question would arise which tank model for which side should be chosen as the "determining cost" model.
EDIT: You are also right about Peoples General (alias Dynasty General) about the loss of fun factor because the units could get destroyed too easily by a single for example Air attack (which due to the different combat system could take place anywhere anytime on the entire map).
Lets keep Star General out of this discussion - it was more a game of "building units" rather then "using units". There also did not really exist different sides units where "clones" of each other apart from the images.
(the above equations are obviously very simplistic compared to the real calculations; but I hope my point gets across anyhow) "
"First idea is to make units like the Tiger II or Maus much more expensive than now for example one Tiger II could cost 2000 prestige and gets cheaper the more common units you buy. So for example the Tiger II could get 100 prestige cheaper for each Panzer IV you buy. This would have the effect, that the forces could be more "realistically" mixed and adding some sort of cool tactical decission making of findeing the right timing to through the big one into the fight."
BOTH very interesting ideas...
Somehow I think that the first one might be an easier and faster approach as I see the problem with the 2nd idea that one has to consider ALL units from all parties. And you surealy cant comare T-34 costs to the amount of Tiger IIs in the army...so the question would arise which tank model for which side should be chosen as the "determining cost" model.
EDIT: You are also right about Peoples General (alias Dynasty General) about the loss of fun factor because the units could get destroyed too easily by a single for example Air attack (which due to the different combat system could take place anywhere anytime on the entire map).
Lets keep Star General out of this discussion - it was more a game of "building units" rather then "using units". There also did not really exist different sides units where "clones" of each other apart from the images.
Sorry to hijack the thread, but your post touches a nerve and I just want to vent a frustration...Molve wrote:Iscaran's point about the Initiative score is probably very useful.
If the cost was (Attack) x (Initiative) instead of (Attack) + (Initiative) then you would probably come pretty close to solving all these issues.
(the above equations are obviously very simplistic compared to the real calculations; but I hope my point gets across anyhow)
Either that or the old PG solution where initiative is lower for each counterattack.
---
Again; keep in mind we're now discussing ways to make the player's elite army less invincible.
One thing about People's General (and the other PG games set in a "modern" era) was how much more difficult it was to preserve your elite units. I distinctly remember those games being significantly less fun to play, since you could at any time run out of luck and have the computer focus on destroying one of your "pet" units, and there was little you could do about it, since helicopters, heavy artillery etc could shred ANY unit to pieces, almost regardless of what screening units you have (if I remember correctly).
To some extent, this was present even in the WWII PG games; certainly for naval units, but that hardly mattered since they were never part of your core; more pressingly for fighter units (since only the very perfect - and obscenely expensive - elite fighters could withstand the end game western allies air armada).
This game is about the "kings of the battlefield"; and while I readily admit it's unreal, having Tiger II's come out of a scuffle with half a dozen soviet tanks without a single scratch IS fun.
In this way People's General lost sight of the core gaming experience players came for, and I sincerely hope PC respects this.
(Not that it was anywhere near the total disaster that was Space General, which completely forgot that the main draw of the series wasn't dull naval warfare where the only criteria was to have the most battleships, but the uniquely interesting rock-paper-scissors aspect of land/air warfare of the WWII era)
---
I honestly believe nothing should be changed for the default game (default settings).
I do realize this won't cut it for some of you more advanced players. How about incorporating these touches of realism into the bonus difficulties? (Rommel, Mannstein etc)
(I'm not proposing adding more such "levels"; instead adding more complications to each of them.)
I've stopped playing until the random number generator is fixed. Currently it occasionally generates a run of numbers within a narrow range contrary to valid probabilities. This can result in the not fun to loss of core units for the reasons you mention. For me, the fun factor is killed.
Hope this is fixed in the patch.
Now back to Tigers.....
The RNG in PC is acceptable from a German point of view.
However as Allies, you can not tolerate it as your units are too weak to suffer those extreme damages.
Try playing as Allies in single or MP games and you will see what I mean.
It is yet another advantage the Human has over the AI since the AI is Allied.
However as Allies, you can not tolerate it as your units are too weak to suffer those extreme damages.
Try playing as Allies in single or MP games and you will see what I mean.
It is yet another advantage the Human has over the AI since the AI is Allied.
So you only got Tiger IIs, had some initial success, but then ultimately lost. Sounds like everything is working as intended. The player has the freedom to only buy elite top end units if they really want, but only buying those units is not the best path to achieve victory.Boepp wrote:I tested it out on Frozen North and built only Tiger II tanks in the beginning of the battle. The first few turns it worked great and I made some ground but then my enemy countered with lots of infantry, anti-tank and some IS2 and artillery and slowly pushed me back. Now five turns before the end I only have two objectives left and do not think that I can win this anymore. But fortunately I found my new favourite crsis solver the Jagdpanther which is in my opinion the best anti-tank unit the germans have.
People are allowed to play how they want, but if they want to be more successful, they must be dynamic with their choices (mixed force of infantry, anti-tank, artillery, and tanks).
So... what's the problem and why is there a need for changes to the system/map?
We're aware of a degree of randomness with the random number generator that is causing some players discomfort, but I can't make any promises about if and how it will change in the future.willgamer wrote:I've stopped playing until the random number generator is fixed. Currently it occasionally generates a run of numbers within a narrow range contrary to valid probabilities. This can result in the not fun to loss of core units for the reasons you mention. For me, the fun factor is killed.
Okay I don't really know how it would word out if I would mix some artillery and infantry by myself with less King Tigers and I am very certain that my opponent is better skilled than I am. So obviously there is no need to change anything. But like any balance issue in a very complex game it's very hard to work it out because you need two equally skilled players who are fighting it out and still then there could be some problems with lady luck so you have to play it some more times to equal luck. But that doesn't concern me very much because I tried it out for myself and realized that it's not the proper way to play and will stick to something else in future battles.
My suggestions concerned the meta discussion in this thread concerning more "realistic" mixed forces. So some Panzer IV along with few Tigers and Panthers rather than only Panthers for expample. And for that I suggested my ideas how to achieve this.
My suggestions concerned the meta discussion in this thread concerning more "realistic" mixed forces. So some Panzer IV along with few Tigers and Panthers rather than only Panthers for expample. And for that I suggested my ideas how to achieve this.
Fair enough, but as I said in the other thread:
So lower ammo or lower stats (nerfs) on the Tiger II or a revamped and more complicated (and arbitrarily restricting) system? Not likely to happen. Possibly a price increase, but I highly doubt it, as it is the single most expensive unit in the game already.
However, buffing the usefulness and combat abilities of the more 'common' units such as PZ IVs, Shermans, and T34s to be more effective and abundant? Count on it.
So lower ammo or lower stats (nerfs) on the Tiger II or a revamped and more complicated (and arbitrarily restricting) system? Not likely to happen. Possibly a price increase, but I highly doubt it, as it is the single most expensive unit in the game already.
However, buffing the usefulness and combat abilities of the more 'common' units such as PZ IVs, Shermans, and T34s to be more effective and abundant? Count on it.
I'm not sure i agree with limiting Tiger II availability or incrementally increasing their costs per unit purchased, hopefully theres a better solution. I agree that the main issue is that there's almost no reason to buy two Pz IVG's over one tiger II, as a single IS-2 will devastate a whole force of them in one turn if attacked.
It seems that mass attack, the feature designed to affect this problem has far more impact on troops (who actually should be able to spread out their line easier) than it does against the heavy tanks who would have more difficulty deploying to meet attacks from the sides.
It seems that mass attack, the feature designed to affect this problem has far more impact on troops (who actually should be able to spread out their line easier) than it does against the heavy tanks who would have more difficulty deploying to meet attacks from the sides.
This is good news. The T-34 series especially needs work, its so vunerable to losses in combat.However, buffing the usefulness and combat abilities of the more 'common' units such as PZ IVs, Shermans, and T34s to be more effective and abundant? Count on it.
In all fairness, isn't this because you know the game mechanics more than anyone else, game mechanics that don't even have to be a correct reflection of recommended army strategies and tactics? You know exactly what is NOT covered by "your" game and what shouldn't be tried. I don't think I'm being unfair here.Kerensky wrote:They are quite strong, but they're manageable because of their exorbitant price. I've played lots of games of TFN as the Russians, and I haven't ever had a serious problem with someone using Tiger IIs. I'd be more than happy to prove it too, just start a private game of TFN, set yourself up as the Germans and buy Tiger IIs to your heart's content, and we'll have a go at it.
If it is more vulnerable than Panzer IV or Sherman, then it is quite close to the truth. T-34 were produced in thousands and lost in thousands.soldier wrote:The T-34 series especially needs work, its so vunerable to losses in combat.
However, the offensive capabilities of medium tanks vs heavy tanks should be verified, probably.
I don't think T- 34 was lost in its thousands because its ground defense was poor (as it is in the game) or because it was a particularly vunerable tank, there are number of broader strategic reasons for the high losses. Russian doctrine for much of the war tended to concentrate more on sledge hammer frontal assaults and the application of brute force, rather than tactical finesse. Such methods were always very costly in terms of men and machines. This can simulated in the game by how you play not by altering tanks defensive ratings. Also German tank crews were trained to a much higher level and taught to be adaptable and use initiative. Their tank tactics were more advanced than the Russians and they had a greater skill and flexibilty in coordinating with other forces at ground or air level. Russian tank crews like their soldiers for much of the war were given rudimentary training and then thrown in to the fire, with the results you mentioned - thousands killed. Again this is simulated in the game by the experience ratings of units not a units vital statistics . I have also read you posting elsewhere that the T-34 was mechanically unreliable and plagued with difficulties early on. This is true but mechanical reliability is not simulated in the game at all. If it was you should see German tiger and jagdtiger units driving around at half strength.
The T-34 was the most highly produced tank in WW2 and this fact alone invariably leads to higher numbers being destroyed. German forces encountered more T-34's than any other tank in the war and had many more opportunities to destroy them.
The T-34 was the most highly produced tank in WW2 and this fact alone invariably leads to higher numbers being destroyed. German forces encountered more T-34's than any other tank in the war and had many more opportunities to destroy them.
I hope any rule changes that might come out of this discussion would be optional.
In my opinion, the late-game toys are already WAY too expensive.
Very early in development, I made a similar suggestion to that of Iscaran, based on PG4 (or whatever it's called where you live): force limits.
Like, there are two Tigers available, and that's it.
I also liked the leader/unit pairings that game introduced, but ... it's a different game. PC is supposed to be a PG remake, not a PG3 remake, nor a PG4 remake.
Most of the balance changes you guys are suggesting would turn this from a PG remake into another game entirely, and I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Personally, I feel the changes made are already worth arguing about - for example some of you say late game units should be even more expensive, but they are already way, WAY more expensive than they were in PG in some cases. A valuable mechanic from PG, prestige gained from successful combat, was removed for this very reason - it was calculated from the base unit cost, and since everything costs a friggin' fortune in PC, it would probably make you filthy rich.
My own "favorite solution" to this issue would be to have prestige costs of units decay over time. A fashionable new Tiger 2 Prototype would cost 920 or whatever it's base price is, but the long-obsolete (and widely deployed) PzIVs would cost a mere fraction of their original price.
Then again, this issue is broader than it might seem.
Unlike PG, where there was a relatively generous force-limit PLUS buyable auxilary units in many missions, who in their right mind would waste an unit slot on a sub-par unit, no matter how cheap, in PC, with it's tight force limits and aux-units always stuck at zero?
And what would you do with these cheaper units? The PC scenario designers saw fit to fill the ranks of your opposition with lots and lots of uber-strong enemy units, don't you NEED that Tiger2, as unstoppable as it may be, to deal with the hordes of soviet tanks that would otherwise shred YOUR lesser tanks to tears?
How else would you dislodge an enemy force concentration with the soviet late-game SP arty and deeply entrenched Str15 elite inf units?
Would any hope remain to do this in the tight time limit for a decisive victory?
That said, yesterday I playtested the mission where you need to defend Warsaw (Byelorussia?), and after upgrading 3 tanks to Tiger2s I could hardly afford anything else, but boy, 3 14 Str Tiger2s and a couple of Panthers to assist stopped the Russians right in their tracks - I never needed to fall back an inch, it was a slaughter.
_____
rezaf
In my opinion, the late-game toys are already WAY too expensive.
Very early in development, I made a similar suggestion to that of Iscaran, based on PG4 (or whatever it's called where you live): force limits.
Like, there are two Tigers available, and that's it.
I also liked the leader/unit pairings that game introduced, but ... it's a different game. PC is supposed to be a PG remake, not a PG3 remake, nor a PG4 remake.
Most of the balance changes you guys are suggesting would turn this from a PG remake into another game entirely, and I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Personally, I feel the changes made are already worth arguing about - for example some of you say late game units should be even more expensive, but they are already way, WAY more expensive than they were in PG in some cases. A valuable mechanic from PG, prestige gained from successful combat, was removed for this very reason - it was calculated from the base unit cost, and since everything costs a friggin' fortune in PC, it would probably make you filthy rich.
My own "favorite solution" to this issue would be to have prestige costs of units decay over time. A fashionable new Tiger 2 Prototype would cost 920 or whatever it's base price is, but the long-obsolete (and widely deployed) PzIVs would cost a mere fraction of their original price.
Then again, this issue is broader than it might seem.
Unlike PG, where there was a relatively generous force-limit PLUS buyable auxilary units in many missions, who in their right mind would waste an unit slot on a sub-par unit, no matter how cheap, in PC, with it's tight force limits and aux-units always stuck at zero?
And what would you do with these cheaper units? The PC scenario designers saw fit to fill the ranks of your opposition with lots and lots of uber-strong enemy units, don't you NEED that Tiger2, as unstoppable as it may be, to deal with the hordes of soviet tanks that would otherwise shred YOUR lesser tanks to tears?
How else would you dislodge an enemy force concentration with the soviet late-game SP arty and deeply entrenched Str15 elite inf units?
Would any hope remain to do this in the tight time limit for a decisive victory?
That said, yesterday I playtested the mission where you need to defend Warsaw (Byelorussia?), and after upgrading 3 tanks to Tiger2s I could hardly afford anything else, but boy, 3 14 Str Tiger2s and a couple of Panthers to assist stopped the Russians right in their tracks - I never needed to fall back an inch, it was a slaughter.
_____
rezaf
-
monkspider
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:22 am
This has been a fascinating thread. Although I do find myself agreeing with those who would like to see some kind of mechanism that forces the player to use more historical army groups, I think Rezaf's point is very well taken. The way the game is balanced currently expects that the player will use a core force that mostly consists of uber-units. I think it is imperative that we avoid the mistakes made by the Panzer General 2 modding community where they would increase costs and reduce prestige and do everything to force the player to have almost nothing but yet at the same time give the AI ahistorically strong forces. It was absurd, and this kind of mean-spirited gameplay philosophy made almost every mod unplayable for me. I would much rather that we keep things as they are then go in this direction.
That said, I would appreciate some kind of mechanism to help out the units that need it, the towed anti-tank guns, the air defense units, the Panzer I's and IIs', the post-1942 medium tanks, and so forth. But I think that the developers definitely should keep Rezaf's post in perspective too.
That said, I would appreciate some kind of mechanism to help out the units that need it, the towed anti-tank guns, the air defense units, the Panzer I's and IIs', the post-1942 medium tanks, and so forth. But I think that the developers definitely should keep Rezaf's post in perspective too.
You are right in many aspects.soldier wrote:I don't think T- 34 was lost in its thousands because its ground defense was poor (as it is in the game) or because it was a particularly vunerable tank, there are number of broader strategic reasons for the high losses. Russian doctrine for much of the war tended to concentrate more on sledge hammer frontal assaults and the application of brute force, rather than tactical finesse. Such methods were always very costly in terms of men and machines. This can simulated in the game by how you play not by altering tanks defensive ratings. Also German tank crews were trained to a much higher level and taught to be adaptable and use initiative. Their tank tactics were more advanced than the Russians and they had a greater skill and flexibilty in coordinating with other forces at ground or air level. Russian tank crews like their soldiers for much of the war were given rudimentary training and then thrown in to the fire, with the results you mentioned - thousands killed. Again this is simulated in the game by the experience ratings of units not a units vital statistics . I have also read you posting elsewhere that the T-34 was mechanically unreliable and plagued with difficulties early on. This is true but mechanical reliability is not simulated in the game at all. If it was you should see German tiger and jagdtiger units driving around at half strength.
The T-34 was the most highly produced tank in WW2 and this fact alone invariably leads to higher numbers being destroyed. German forces encountered more T-34's than any other tank in the war and had many more opportunities to destroy them.
Still, what I meant was that casualties among T-34 crews were much higher than, for example, Shermans' crews (data from the Korean war). If one tank loses 20-25% of its crew, and the other one loses 70-80% every time it is hit, then I would simulate it by giving worse def stats in the game.
Also, the thing you cannot forget when designing units in a game is that mass produced Russian equipment was far from the data on paper.
Russian equipment (prototypes for example) were quite often much more better than Western equivalents, but most of its qualities were lost in reality of mass-production. It is not funny when have to fly with canopy opened in your fighter (Yak-1) because it went yellow and totally non-transparent, or when your wing dismantles during dogfight/acrobatics
.Reliability, faults in construction, etc can be simulated in the game by tweaking stats the unit has (soft/hard defense, initiative, mobility, etc) - and as far as I remember it was sometimes done even in PG this way.