Perfecting the near-perfect game that is Panzer Corps

[deducter]

I'm not sure that heavy tanks really have as low close defense as you guys seem to think. My Tiger II that stumbled into a swamp got wiped out by two SU-100s, which did about 5 damage, and two infantry (one might even have been a conscript) that did the remaining 5. I do agree something to make PzIV and T-34 more viable is good. Lowering costs might be the best way to go, a few 300 prestige PzIV Js to help me chew up Russian infantry would be greatly welcomed.

Historically wasn't the Ausf. J a worse tank than the previous Ausf. H version? But it was cheaper to produce.

Edit: I do agree air defense for heavy tanks are much too high... Tanks like the Maus would just be one big target for Allied air attacks.

[El_Condoro]

Lowering costs might be the best way to go, a few 300 prestige PzIV Js to help me chew up Russian infantry would be greatly welcomed.

That would have to go hand in glove with the scenario developer opening up more slots. If you have 1000 points to spend and one slot I'm pretty sure you'll take a KT over a Pz IV!

[Molve]

Suggestion:

1) All scenario slots are increased 50%
2) Mechanized units now occupy TWO slots
3) Heavy Armor (specifically!) occupy THREE slots

So if you today can field, say, 18 Tigers, you would tomorrow have to choose between
a) NINE (9) Tigers
b) THIRTEEN (13) PzIVs or Grenadiers in Halftracks or self-propelled AT or...
c) TWENTY-SEVEN (27) pre-Blitzkrieg units (Infantry in trucks, towed artillery and AT etc)

(or, obviously, any legit combination of a, b, and c!)

The point isn't supposed to force people play with immobile "useless" troops, but to find use for units with less than maximum stats. Sure you would still buy a Tiger or two, but for that eighth or ninth slot, wouldn't two AT units or perhaps three regular Wehrmacht infantry units be a much better addition to your overall counter mix...?

The idea would be that for two Tigers you could fit three PzIVs into your core army. Since the biggest limiter might, as you say, be not prestige but core slots.

[ruskicanuk]

I like this idea for sure (though the details would of course need testing). I think it largely achieves the same effect I am looking for - mediums are now better since you can have more of them. I'd use the same thing for the campaign core units - heavy tanks use up more slots.

I guess the only thing that doesn't appeal is it requires more strenuous scenario design to ensure that slots actually are a limiting factor (rather than prestige). So it requires careful design.

The other idea I liked was the suggestion to simply lower medium tank prestige costs. Maybe a better one is to raise heavy tank costs. Would you buy a King Tiger @$1300? Well maybe but it will hurt the pocket book. That largely deals with multiplayer but the campaign core consisting of pure Tigers remains as you role in the doe.

All in all:

(1) Reduce ROF for heavies, increase their ground defense and hard attack, lower their close/air defense and make them cost the same as mediums.

Advantages: solves medium/heavy tank problem without depending on whether you are playing multiplayer/campaign, are rich or not and doesn't depend on adroit scenario design.

Disadvantages: requires ROF concept to be understood by gamers, probably requires some design changes in how stats are displayed.

(2) Heavies take up more slots

Advantages: great for the campaign - very interesting choice between heavy and medium

Disadvantages: requires careful scenario design to make sure that core slots are an actual constraint.

(3) Heavies are more expensive

Advantages: very simple to implement, solves the problem mostly for multiplayer where money is always a constraint

disadvantages: campaign still has issues as good players typically have endless cash so paying a big premium for the big core unit that will stay with you perpetually is well worth the $

Suggestion:

1) All scenario slots are increased 50%
2) Mechanized units now occupy TWO slots
3) Heavy Armor (specifically!) occupy THREE slots

So if you today can field, say, 18 Tigers, you would tomorrow have to choose between
a) NINE (9) Tigers
b) THIRTEEN (13) PzIVs or Grenadiers in Halftracks or self-propelled AT or...
c) TWENTY-SEVEN (27) pre-Blitzkrieg units (Infantry in trucks, towed artillery and AT etc)

(or, obviously, any legit combination of a, b, and c!)

The point isn't supposed to force people play with immobile "useless" troops, but to find use for units with less than maximum stats. Sure you would still buy a Tiger or two, but for that eighth or ninth slot, wouldn't two AT units or perhaps three regular Wehrmacht infantry units be a much better addition to your overall counter mix...?

The idea would be that for two Tigers you could fit three PzIVs into your core army. Since the biggest limiter might, as you say, be not prestige but core slots.

[Molve]

ruski, the idea to increase the prestige costs of the best units to better represent their awesomeness have been floated several times before.

Each time the answer is the same: can't do that, we WANT players to be able to afford the shiniest toys in the box.

And I agree. That's why I feel a "using up more slots" drawback would be better. It would make the current prestige costs more accurate and would allow everyone to keep buying them, only buying ONLY* them would no longer be optimal.



*) of course buying only Tigers is already suboptimal, but you know what I'm getting at...

[ruskicanuk]

Indeed I like that idea more than the increase in prestige cost. Just requires careful scenario design for multiplayer so that slots are an actual constraint.

ruski, the idea to increase the prestige costs of the best units to better represent their awesomeness have been floated several times before.

Each time the answer is the same: can't do that, we WANT players to be able to afford the shiniest toys in the box.

And I agree. That's why I feel a "using up more slots" drawback would be better. It would make the current prestige costs more accurate and would allow everyone to keep buying them, only buying ONLY* them would no longer be optimal.



*) of course buying only Tigers is already suboptimal, but you know what I'm getting at...