Mercutio wrote:I always start at a medium level of a game (Colonel in this case). After blowing through some scenarios and always getting decisive, I started over at General. That was harder, but I always at least got Marginal. I hadn't hit the big upgrade year yet. When I got there after Stalingrad, all the sudden my stuff was ancient and the Soviets was top notch. I still pulled a marginal, but the cost was enormous in units. So essentially I played 20+ hours to learn about the upgrade/prestige system and had to start over. Renaming and nursing my troops was kind of pointless. Now that is frustrating.
This is exactly what i did and i did not have any problems upgrading all my infantry and tanks to the newest equipment available. Especially in Stalingrad scenario there aren't many expensive upgrades available, except the Tiger I, which becomes available in the middle of the scenario. Even in the next scenario which is Kursk, where all the 43 versions of infantry, Tigers (ok as i said they was already available in the middle of previous scenario but upgrading during a scenario is anyway a major waste of time imho) Panthers, Fw190s become available i was able to upgrade most of my units. I do not have the save anymore so i can not check it exactly but if memory serves i could upgrade all my infantry tanks and about half of my fighters instantly. Maybe your loses up to this point was to high and you lost to much prestige on reinforcement and replacing units?
Now i see how one can perceive this as frustrating but isn't it more like lesson learned, i need to perform better? In every thing we do we get better in time, if you succeed at something instantly it usually just indicate the task was to easy in the first place and there is no sense of accomplishment for doing it. Now i understand different people may have less time to invest into the game or just be less experienced with strategy games but thats what the difficulty levels are for. It's no shame to start on Lieutenant and it makes the game easier and a lot more accesible. In worst case there is still the Sergeant level but this is so easy i really would not recommend that as its no fun at all.
Mercutio wrote:
So I started over at General and get decisive now each time, but those are the beginning scenarios. Additionally, those scenarios are getting stale because I have already played them. The only thing I can equate it to would be if you were in college with the idea of getting a four year degree. You decide to get a PHD and they made you start back in High School, but with harder classes. So you go through it again and decide on a masters. Well, back to High School again!
I see and understand your frustration but i think your comparison is a bit wrong but tbh. i can not think of better one. Anyway, i think most of your frustration comes from the fact that you actually stopped in the middle of campaign you perceived as to easy and cranked up the difficulty level without noticing that the later war scenarios become more difficult anyway. Now you are stuck there through a combination of both difficulty increasing factors. While this is not documented anywhere it is the case in most games that it becomes progressively harder.
I see three possible solutions there:
1. If you still have the old saves from your colonel campaign try to continue this again. The reduced difficulty level may allow you to beat the game easier.
2. You can just carry on with your current settings and accept the fact that you will lose. Even or maybe even especially when losing you can learn a lot more about the game and as the campaign is dynamic this allows you to play different scenarios then on the winning path, it's something i plan to do myself as well soon. Play the "losing" way.
3. Just take a break from the campaign. If you still want to play the game take a look at the different mods, some of them got very entertaining player made campaigns. Play this for a change in scenery and then come back to the stock campaign later. After a break it won't hopefully feel so "stale".
Mercutio wrote:
I get the point on transport, except for one thing. How come a half-track can drag huge pieces of Arty, AA and AD around at the same speed as a group of infantry? Usually larger things are transported by larger vehicles. The larger the payload, the lower the speed.
Panzer Corps and Panzer General are both Beer and Pretzel level games. They involve a huge abstraction level. I am happy with the fact that all vehicles are dragged by the same transporter, even if it's historically and logically a bit off. Of course the developer can make some different transporter models and assign the to the proper types of troops but it seems to me like a lot work for no real gain. I prefer the limited developer resources to be rather invested somewhere else like f.e. more content or improving the AI. On the other hand if they get added i won't cry about it.
Mercutio wrote:
I don't understand that if I disband my units and buy a bigger/better one, I get the prestige of the previous unit. Doing so, I loose the experienced crew. If I upgrade the unit and keep the crew, I don't get the prestige of the replaced tank.
Don't get me wrong, I like the game very much. This is one of the most confusing and least documented parts of playing the game. You would help new players immensely by better documentation and cleaning it up a bit.
You have the option to either get your prestige back and lose the experience or keep the experience but lose prestige. Think about the first like sending your old unit back to the HQ which then reallocate it to somewhere else and you get a new green unit and the second is more like keeping your crew and buying them a new equipment. Seems quite logical to me, of course at the abstract level of PC. But i agree totally with you that the this could be a lot better documented and explained. It would make it easier especially for newcomers. I think the limited development resources problem strikes here again.
