Scenario Setup: Upgrading Units by downgrading them first.

[asrn]

The ablity to 'downgrade' a core unit for no cost creates an exploitable/abusable loophole.

Hopefully this loophole can be closed.

If you have a half strength Panzer IVG with Hero's (and experience) you want to keep, but need a Panther D tank to keep up in power.
1. You can 'downgrade' it to a less expensive unit for 0 cost, and then add Elite Reinforcements for less cost than the original unit would have cost you to reinnforce with Elite.
2. You then 'upgrade' it to the Panther D and pay the full price of a new unit.

This is cheaper than reinforcing your unit and then upgrading, or upgrading and then reinforcing (which is the most expensive technique).

I'd suggest having units record their most valuable unit type in their 'history, so that you always pay for reinforcements for the best type it was once.

[rezaf]

And you're sure that's worth the trouble?
Even first reinforcing and then upgrading is technically a loophole, should the upgrade cost 1.5x the base price for a Str 15 unit?

I don't think this needs fixing, if you know this "loophole" (I did not until now) and feel it's "unethical" to pursue it, how about just not using it?
_____
rezaf

[impar]

And you're sure that's worth the trouble?

Prestige-wise? Yes.

[KarlXII]

And you're sure that's worth the trouble?
Even first reinforcing and then upgrading is technically a loophole, should the upgrade cost 1.5x the base price for a Str 15 unit?

I don't think this needs fixing, if you know this "loophole" (I did not until now) and feel it's "unethical" to pursue it, how about just not using it?
_____
rezaf

Opportunity makes the thief so to speak. Better to try to prevent this exploit if it is not intentional.

[Xerkis]

And you're sure that's worth the trouble?
Even first reinforcing and then upgrading is technically a loophole, should the upgrade cost 1.5x the base price for a Str 15 unit?

I don't think this needs fixing, if you know this "loophole" (I did not until now) and feel it's "unethical" to pursue it, how about just not using it?
_____
rezaf

Opportunity makes the thief so to speak. Better to try to prevent this exploit if it is not intentional.

Very true. Otherwise you might as well say you don’t need to put much in to combat calculations. After all, the players will know that they should have lost that battle and will disband their unit on the next turn.

.............. Obviously a very extreme example, but hopefully gets the point across.

[rezaf]

That's a very extreme example indeed.

IF the effort was made to fix this, I'd instead suggest using my "silly idea" instead - when upgrading a unit, take it's base strength into consideration. You could downgrade to your heat's content, but if you upgraded again after bringing the unit to 15, you'd have to shell out the extra prestige those additional unit's would've cost.
Always pricing reinforcements at the highest price that ever applied seems wrong to me.

Also, if deteriorating costs would ever be introduced, or a way to modify base prices during the course of the campaign, this could cause more issues.

In the bottom line, still not worth the trouble, imo.
In multiplayer single matches, do people really upgrade their units in the heat of battle?
And in single player campaign, who cares?
If you feel like you can't stop yourself from using an exploit to save you a few hundred prestige, so be it.
Reloading to replay that turn because you lost your two best tank units to a concerted enemy attack is an exploit, too.
Should player consequently prevented from reloading?
_____
rezaf

[KarlXII]

This is not a priority thing to fix for me neither. I would rather let them work to improve the A.I. but it is still a thing to consider fixing in the long run.

[Xerkis]

Hhmmm…. Perhaps my point did not come across after all.


Point I was trying to make was on intent. If the Devs intending the game to work a certain way and it does not; then it needs to be fixed so it does work as intended. So if the downgrade upgrade is not supposed to work as describe in this “loophole”, then it needs to be fix. No matter if it’s ethical or not.

But Rezaf, you are 100% correct that if a player thinks something is unethical to do; then just don’t do it. That is precisely how I choose to play. Case in point; rezaf’s example of the reloading of the game just because you took a big loss. Big losses is part of the game, so I personally would never do that. I believe that if you play any game in such a “dishonorable” way, you might as well as save you money, don’t by the game and say to yourself, “yeah, I beat that one”

[asrn]

The problem is that the loophole 'effectively' lets you have/spend more prestige than you actually have. This is something that needs to be corrected.

This is simply a location where the game 'economics' breaks down and is technically a design flaw.


As the original poster, my request is that the 'loophole' be removed, as it serves no effective purpose other than to give some players the 'option' that doesn't really do anything for the game.

Now, in terms of 'rationalizing' in a "prestige based system" why you as a commander who can 'spend' your prestige to change units (a non-realistic mechanism that was made for 'gaming' purposes), one could come up with a rationalization that they 'gain' prestige by taking cast offs from other commanders and then use the additional prestige to buy the better units. But honesty, honor, etc. are all irrelevant, this is simply a location where the game 'economics' breaks down and is technically a design flaw. (A minor one that can easily be overlooked until someone discover the exploit potential.)

[Obsolete]

Back in PG2 there were a few TRICKS here and there in regards to upgrading/downgrading, etc. Some people went so far as to call a few of these exploits. So far I think things are fine the way they are (could change in the future). I always love it when I find an odd trick/exploit here and there to try to get around and do something NEW, even if the developers never intended it.

Now, if it were totally game-breaking, then that's a different story.

[Kerensky]

The upgrade system has a few holes, but the most severe ones have already been plugged. Used to be able to buy a conscript for 60, and then upgrade it for 50 more into a 15 strength guards infantry unit. That was game breaking, and it got fixed.

This is something to be addressed, but it's really not a big deal. The unit most affected by this is the Panzer IV line, and the difference between the lowest and highest is the IVD and IVJ at a cost of 248. The cost to elite a IVD from 1 to 10 is 125, to cost to elite a IVJ is 250.

Net profit, 125 prestige, in the most extreme example possible. It only goes down from here.

I save more prestige with good tactics (suppression and surrender spam) than I ever could 'abusing' this issue.
Besides, half the threads around here are all talk about how useless the Panzer IV is, so... yea. lol

As we move forward with more content, we'll of course take the time to address loopholes like this. It may be as simple as forcing upgrades of any kind to carry X base cost, but odds are people may have issue with that, for example someone may want to 'trade in' their high end equipment, to artificially increase the game difficulty or make a campaign more historical, or for any number of reasons, and now those people are being punished.

[Iscaran]

Hmmm...

IF that works then downgrading ANY tank to say a PZ IA first - then elite replacing it and upgrading it back to say a Panther would definitely spare LOTS of prestige.

Not they this approach would be needed for Colonel difficulty if you ask me - but its an exploit nevertheless and the fix should not be too complicated to introduce ?

[Kerensky]

No, that doesn't work Iscaran. Only upgrading in series to a lower unit in the series results in an upgrade cost of 0. Turning a Maus into a PZIA costs as much as turning a PZII into a PZIA (full prize of the PZ IA).

[Molve]

But the cost of a PzI is low.

Without having tested out this procedure, to my mind the loophole would still exist for other kinds of equipment other than PzIVs. Yes, you can't downgrade for zero prestige, but you still save more than what the PzI cost you.

(If this holds water I now understand why the Germans used PzI's as training tanks... Sorry, I kid - I understand both sides in the discussion: yes, it is still an exploit that probably should be closed; but no, it's probably not a deal-breaker and probably not something the devs need to prioritize)


Molve

PS. Kerensky, I don't think that Maus scenario of yours is very representative. Remember, the exploit is when you are about to upgrade into a completely new unit family, when the value of your current unit is effectively zero (so downgrading means tossing away nothing you aren't about to toss away anyway). Somehow I have a difficult time imagining upgrading from a Maus...

[asrn]

Clarification for those who aren't aware, "downgrading" from a Panzer 4 D to a PzI means BUYING a PzI which costs prestiege.

You can only downgrade in a unit category (i.e. only form Panzer IV to another model Panzer IV)

[Fimconte]

Consider a badly damaged Veteran (3-4 stars) Panzer IV "downgraded" into PzIA, reinforced to full strength, upgraded into a Tiger I.

[Molve]

The ablity to 'downgrade' a core unit for no cost creates an exploitable/abusable loophole.

No, you can still make more by overstrengthing a PzI than it costs you to downgrade to that PzI.

In fact, the zero downgrade cost is in itself fine.

The problem is that overstrengthing costs are based on your current piece of equipment. This is a simplification that creates the loophole.

What you would need is have the game remember a "phantom unit", the most expensive unit that crew has ever helmed; and basing all overstrength costs on that.

This would mean that the game just got less simple, less direct, less intuitive. A PzIVG crew that once helmed a Tiger would be more expensive to overstrength than a crew that haven't ever helmed anything bigger than the PzIVG they're assigned now.

Are you ready for the confused newbie tech support questions?

---

Actually, that would only close this particular loophole. It wouldn't fix the fact that overstrengthing first, upgrading second is cheaper than vice versa.

To fix that, the game would need to instead remember what particular piece of equipment the overstrength was done on, and when upgrading also applying a surcharge to represent the difference in cost of os:ing on the new shiny hardware.

That way, even though the cost of going from Strength 10 to Strength 15 on PzI's is low, upgrading into Tiger II's would cost you a fortune.



And at that point, I would seriously start consider fixed overstrength costs instead.

That is, no matter what hardware you're driving, each step of overstrength costs the same.

Of course, that would mean nobody would ever overstrength early/weak units; and that overstrengthing your Me262 jet fighters would probably become outright cheap compared to the current costs....

[Molve]

Clarification for those who aren't aware, "downgrading" from a Panzer 4 D to a PzI means BUYING a PzI which costs prestiege.

I am aware of that.

If a PzI costs 107 prestige and you save 125 prestige just by downgrading into the earliest PzIV, I am assuming you still end up on top by downgrading into that PzI.

Meaning the exploit still is "active" for other scenarios than PzIVs...

[Kerensky]

We considered a system where unit strength had a direct correlation to price adjustments. Currently, for example, disbanding a 1 strength and a 15 strength of the same unit both return the same prestige (talking deploy phase prestige, not the 0 from mid scenario disbanding), which is not what this system would do.
This also applies to upgrades, where a 1 strength unit upgrading from A to B costs 1xPrice and a 10 strength unit upgrading from A to B costs 10xprice.

There wasn't enough time to implement everything we wanted, but it's definitely something to consider in the future. There is always the issue of future changing breaking current content though, so this also has to be considered.

[rezaf]

Like I wrote elsewhere, I find the entire model-line system silly to begin with and will throw it out in my mod(s), eventually.
The idea of prestige is not that you buy spare parts with it someplace and assemble one PzIV variant into another, imo.
Instead you use your influence to request equipment from a superior, who will grant your requests based on your prestige - but that'll only get you so far (hence your prestige decreasing when you "buy" something).
In other words, even if you make one of the (very few) exchanges where you swap an older model of something with a slightly retrofitted newer model, this, in effect, means sending back your old units to HQ, where they'll be redeployed, and receiving the new units in exchange.
Whether you swap a PzIVD with a PzIVE or a PzIA with a Panther D is irrelevant, the process is the same.
Thus, in my opinion, you should ALWAYS receive at least a partial refund of the unit you send back to the HQ for reassignment.
_____
rezaf