Comments about new Multiplayer goes here
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Comments about new Multiplayer goes here
fixed
Last edited by Kerensky on Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Happycat
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:57 am
- Location: Riverview NB Canada
I second this motionDalinski wrote:First initial impression is that Germans should have a default 2 star experiance level while the Russians have 1 star for this time period. Would help to balance the start also.
It would be completely in line both in terms of game balance and historical reality. If Siberian reinforcements become available at the end of 1941, those could be higher experienced units for USSR, but otherwise 2 star German, 1 star Soviet sounds right.
Chance favours the prepared mind.
Thanks for kicking my butt in my first MP everKerensky wrote:Thanks for everyone for help testing! I'm going to abandon all the games I hosted under 1.04 LIVE VERSION.
For anyone who wishes to resume testing, please do so under 1.05 BETA VERSION.
You are all free to test the maps against each other at this point!
*bow*
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Let me preface this by saying I have not played a lot of mp games yet, so the verdict is still out, but my initial impressions are these:
SMG infantry is supposed to be a Soviet equivalent of HW infantry, and it has a CD of 4, which is interesting. However, in practice, they get bombarded by artillery and easily suppressed then attacked. They don't resist artillery well do to their low GD of 5. I'm thinking the unit could use +2 GD to help resist attack by artillery a bit.
The Yak-3 doesn't seem to be much of a match for the FW-190. In fact, the Soviet fighters are in general still quite a bit inferior. I don't think the stats are the issue, but consider lowering the prestige cost for the Red Air Force even more. I think a good German player can easily inflict 2x or more the air force loss on the Soviets, but it'd be nice for the Soviets to swarm the air with planes despite heavy losses.
Iron Cross, Red Star:
Interesting map, towed artillery in particular can be quite good, since they regularly suppress 2-3 strength on tanks. The units seem to me to be balanced. Lack of a VH on the southwestern part of the mapmakes that particular avenue much less valuable to fight over. A single recon unit posted there is more than sufficient warning for any sort of potential sneak attack through that route, which honestly would take too long. The map has a decent amount of maneuver possible. It seems that the location could use a city or two plus an airfield, or something. I am mostly used to playing late-war maps, so I am not quite so used to low kill counts. Need to play more to have a better idea of the map.
Dnieper:
High maneuver map, lots of fluid action back and forth. It seems the Soviets must endeavor to expand their bridgehead somewhat, otherwise they risk the Germans simply attacking and taking back VH on the last turn. The Elefant for the Germans is particularly powerful, and the Soviets don't have a real good counter to it except air power and exhausting the Elefant's ammo.
Return to Kiev:
A slugfest in the middle, while tanks drive around the north and south. The battle lines are more or less static, and the only real decision is where to concentrate armor, the north or the south, and trying to win what tactical victories you can. Even if the armor can't do much, the battle for Kiev can be won simply by holding as many VH in the city itself as possible, and defending behind the bridge in the north and south. I think this map will come down to attrition. This map is like a big version of the British sector of UW, where the battle lines are more or less static. If this is the design principle, then it works, but I'm personally not a big fan of this style of battle.
Steamrollers vs. Steel:
In theory a Hylan Valley in reverse, since rivers restrict mobility in the north and south, as opposed to Hylan, where rivers limit (to a much lesser extent) mobility in the middle. The thing is though, in practice I think this design will force players to simply slug it out in the middle, with "blob on blob" action. Holding the rivers is quite easy, even if the opponent has air support and high power armor units. I wanted to try avoid attacking the middle, but it's very hard to cross the rivers in the north and south, so I have no choice but to concentrate units into the middle. So each side will tend to buy the highest power armor units, the ISU-122 and the Elefants, and slug it out in the middle. Whoever loses fewer units will win.
I feel this map suffers from having too many units. In TFN, HV, UW, my favorite current MP maps, there's never enough units to cover all fronts very well, and the player necessarily must decide where to focus and attack. All the maps have many avenues of attack available, even UW. In contrast, on this map, I am often shocked at how many units can be concentrated in the middle, with enough left over to cover the north and south quite well against any sort of breakthrough attempt.
Closing Thoughts:
One big issue I felt was Kiev and Steamrollers vs. Steel have too many units, especially too many AUX units, which when lost cannot be replaced. I don't like that design principle in MP, where the AUX units in some ways become more valuable than the core units. I like the idea of named units with more experience, like are present in Urban Warfare. I think though, it'd be best to make most of the AUX units on all maps into cores, so if lost, they can be replaced.
SMG infantry is supposed to be a Soviet equivalent of HW infantry, and it has a CD of 4, which is interesting. However, in practice, they get bombarded by artillery and easily suppressed then attacked. They don't resist artillery well do to their low GD of 5. I'm thinking the unit could use +2 GD to help resist attack by artillery a bit.
The Yak-3 doesn't seem to be much of a match for the FW-190. In fact, the Soviet fighters are in general still quite a bit inferior. I don't think the stats are the issue, but consider lowering the prestige cost for the Red Air Force even more. I think a good German player can easily inflict 2x or more the air force loss on the Soviets, but it'd be nice for the Soviets to swarm the air with planes despite heavy losses.
Iron Cross, Red Star:
Interesting map, towed artillery in particular can be quite good, since they regularly suppress 2-3 strength on tanks. The units seem to me to be balanced. Lack of a VH on the southwestern part of the mapmakes that particular avenue much less valuable to fight over. A single recon unit posted there is more than sufficient warning for any sort of potential sneak attack through that route, which honestly would take too long. The map has a decent amount of maneuver possible. It seems that the location could use a city or two plus an airfield, or something. I am mostly used to playing late-war maps, so I am not quite so used to low kill counts. Need to play more to have a better idea of the map.
Dnieper:
High maneuver map, lots of fluid action back and forth. It seems the Soviets must endeavor to expand their bridgehead somewhat, otherwise they risk the Germans simply attacking and taking back VH on the last turn. The Elefant for the Germans is particularly powerful, and the Soviets don't have a real good counter to it except air power and exhausting the Elefant's ammo.
Return to Kiev:
A slugfest in the middle, while tanks drive around the north and south. The battle lines are more or less static, and the only real decision is where to concentrate armor, the north or the south, and trying to win what tactical victories you can. Even if the armor can't do much, the battle for Kiev can be won simply by holding as many VH in the city itself as possible, and defending behind the bridge in the north and south. I think this map will come down to attrition. This map is like a big version of the British sector of UW, where the battle lines are more or less static. If this is the design principle, then it works, but I'm personally not a big fan of this style of battle.
Steamrollers vs. Steel:
In theory a Hylan Valley in reverse, since rivers restrict mobility in the north and south, as opposed to Hylan, where rivers limit (to a much lesser extent) mobility in the middle. The thing is though, in practice I think this design will force players to simply slug it out in the middle, with "blob on blob" action. Holding the rivers is quite easy, even if the opponent has air support and high power armor units. I wanted to try avoid attacking the middle, but it's very hard to cross the rivers in the north and south, so I have no choice but to concentrate units into the middle. So each side will tend to buy the highest power armor units, the ISU-122 and the Elefants, and slug it out in the middle. Whoever loses fewer units will win.
I feel this map suffers from having too many units. In TFN, HV, UW, my favorite current MP maps, there's never enough units to cover all fronts very well, and the player necessarily must decide where to focus and attack. All the maps have many avenues of attack available, even UW. In contrast, on this map, I am often shocked at how many units can be concentrated in the middle, with enough left over to cover the north and south quite well against any sort of breakthrough attempt.
Closing Thoughts:
One big issue I felt was Kiev and Steamrollers vs. Steel have too many units, especially too many AUX units, which when lost cannot be replaced. I don't like that design principle in MP, where the AUX units in some ways become more valuable than the core units. I like the idea of named units with more experience, like are present in Urban Warfare. I think though, it'd be best to make most of the AUX units on all maps into cores, so if lost, they can be replaced.
Interesting feedback. As always, thanks for your input.
Sounds like of all the maps, Dnieper plays the most interestingly. Funny, because of it's inherent imbalances.
Return to Kiev. Yup, that was the intention of it. Kiev is Kiev, it will stay the way it is for those who enjoy those sorts of battles. It's a change of pace, but not necessarily one everyone will enjoy.
As for the other two, it sounds like the rivers are doing their job TOO well. That is, creating defensive positions too difficult to assault that also take too long to try and circumvent and outflank.
ICRS:
What do you think about removing the Zhanna River on hexes 0,17 - 4,20 and 10,25 to 15,29?
This should allow flanking forces who travel that 'empty' area of the map to approach Ianov and Timorvka much more easily, instead of being held up by the river line.
BTW that area of the map was intentionally left empty of cities and airfields to enhance the stealth of units in that area. A flag that changes hands is a dead give away to an enemy's position. A flag not changing hands provides vision on and around the hex.
SAS:
Remove the Woliecz River and Novosoki Rivers entirely. That will open up the entire top portion of the map, an area that is also void of difficult terrain. Should be an ideal place for fast movers (Panthers and T34/85s) to battle for, control, and then use to outflank or bypass any 'bulge' in the middle.
This will create completely open terrain almost all the way from Sandynovosk and Schetyna. If either opposing side manages to reach these two cities, they gain an excellent position to roll their enemy's flank from North to South.
Also, how about adding 1 more bridge crossing on both the Niec and Svietla Rivers in the south?
Oh, and there are only 4 AUX units on ICRS and 5 in SAS. The idea of making them aux is that they truly are irreplaceable. So while CORE slots can be killed off and replaced (prestige is fairly abundant like previous MP maps) AUX slots are more precious. It's a strange concept, that AUX units are more valuable than CORE, but with that mindset, they serve their purpose as both elite and irreplaceable.
Sounds like of all the maps, Dnieper plays the most interestingly. Funny, because of it's inherent imbalances.
Return to Kiev. Yup, that was the intention of it. Kiev is Kiev, it will stay the way it is for those who enjoy those sorts of battles. It's a change of pace, but not necessarily one everyone will enjoy.
As for the other two, it sounds like the rivers are doing their job TOO well. That is, creating defensive positions too difficult to assault that also take too long to try and circumvent and outflank.
ICRS:
What do you think about removing the Zhanna River on hexes 0,17 - 4,20 and 10,25 to 15,29?
This should allow flanking forces who travel that 'empty' area of the map to approach Ianov and Timorvka much more easily, instead of being held up by the river line.
BTW that area of the map was intentionally left empty of cities and airfields to enhance the stealth of units in that area. A flag that changes hands is a dead give away to an enemy's position. A flag not changing hands provides vision on and around the hex.
SAS:
Remove the Woliecz River and Novosoki Rivers entirely. That will open up the entire top portion of the map, an area that is also void of difficult terrain. Should be an ideal place for fast movers (Panthers and T34/85s) to battle for, control, and then use to outflank or bypass any 'bulge' in the middle.
This will create completely open terrain almost all the way from Sandynovosk and Schetyna. If either opposing side manages to reach these two cities, they gain an excellent position to roll their enemy's flank from North to South.
Also, how about adding 1 more bridge crossing on both the Niec and Svietla Rivers in the south?
Oh, and there are only 4 AUX units on ICRS and 5 in SAS. The idea of making them aux is that they truly are irreplaceable. So while CORE slots can be killed off and replaced (prestige is fairly abundant like previous MP maps) AUX slots are more precious. It's a strange concept, that AUX units are more valuable than CORE, but with that mindset, they serve their purpose as both elite and irreplaceable.
Last edited by Kerensky on Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
As for Soviet Fighters, well they are worlds better than their previous stats, but historical context requires the Luftwaffe to be superior.
Adding an extra star to the 2 pre-placed fighters on SAS should help a little, but there's not much else that can be done.
The Yak 3 is 5-4 against the FW-190 and costs less than the FW-190.
The Yak9U is 4-5 against the FW-190 and costs more than the FW-190.
The Soviets cannot buy additional Yak9U in SAS, but upgrading their pre-placed Yak9D to a Yak9U could also help.
Adding an extra star to the 2 pre-placed fighters on SAS should help a little, but there's not much else that can be done.
The Yak 3 is 5-4 against the FW-190 and costs less than the FW-190.
The Yak9U is 4-5 against the FW-190 and costs more than the FW-190.
The Soviets cannot buy additional Yak9U in SAS, but upgrading their pre-placed Yak9D to a Yak9U could also help.
I think removing the Woliecz River and the Novosoki River is a great move. I would also shorten the Niec River and its counterpart, so they don't cover that Belorussian town in the middle. That and/or consider adding a second crossing point, maybe a rail, to the rivers around VH in the south-middle. As it currently stands, whoever wins control over that location has a very easy time holding it, and making the position easier to flank, and adding a second crossing, will make the location more of a position to fight over. This way, there are three avenues of attack open, and a player should have to choose where to attack.
The other thing about SAS is that I feel there are simply too many core units, considering reducing the number somewhat. Remember that the player has all those extra AUX units to help them too. Consider Hylvan, where there are potentially 5 avenues of attack open, in addition to paradrops, and rushing recon units past thinly defended fronts. It is not possible to have more than 2 real battlegroups, mostly because core slots aren't that abundant. I usually use one "breakthrough" group and one "holding group," although it of course depends on the situation. Here there are fewer avenues of attack open, but it seems far more troops available.
I have no problem with the Red Air Force being stats-wise weaker than the Luftwaffe. I mean, go look at the list of all-time greatest aerial aces, there are dozens of them with 100+ kills, pretty much all of them fighting against the Soviets (except for one guy, who I think fought in Africa and knocked out over 100 Allied planes). I just think the prestige cost for the Soviet fighters still need to be lowered just a bit.
The other thing about SAS is that I feel there are simply too many core units, considering reducing the number somewhat. Remember that the player has all those extra AUX units to help them too. Consider Hylvan, where there are potentially 5 avenues of attack open, in addition to paradrops, and rushing recon units past thinly defended fronts. It is not possible to have more than 2 real battlegroups, mostly because core slots aren't that abundant. I usually use one "breakthrough" group and one "holding group," although it of course depends on the situation. Here there are fewer avenues of attack open, but it seems far more troops available.
I have no problem with the Red Air Force being stats-wise weaker than the Luftwaffe. I mean, go look at the list of all-time greatest aerial aces, there are dozens of them with 100+ kills, pretty much all of them fighting against the Soviets (except for one guy, who I think fought in Africa and knocked out over 100 Allied planes). I just think the prestige cost for the Soviet fighters still need to be lowered just a bit.
This sounds like it could work. Consider adding two crossing points on the Zhanna River, linking that area with the Russian town nearby. My main concern is if my opponent send a decent force down there, I merely have to keep one recon car there to see what is going on, I can then rush reinforcements from the middle to help out. Or I can go on the offensive in the middle, knowing he has troops trapped there. It seems very easy to scout out any potential attack, and any attacking force will be useless for probably 3 turns there. Maybe add a crossing or two on the Zhanna to link it to the Russian towns in the middle? Whoever controls the crossing(s) then has an opportunity to flank the south much more easily, as opposed to sending units all the way around to the edge of the map, then down to the south, to flank.ICRS:
What do you think about removing the Zhanna River on hexes 0,17 - 4,20 and 10,25 to 15,29?
This should allow flanking forces who travel that 'empty' area of the map to approach Ianov and Timorvka much more easily, instead of being held up by the river line.
BTW that area of the map was intentionally left empty of cities and airfields to enhance the stealth of units in that area. A flag that changes hands is a dead give away to an enemy's position. A flag not changing hands provides vision on and around the hex.
-
Happycat
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:57 am
- Location: Riverview NB Canada
I am Deducter's victim in ICRS, and am being outplayed (me as Axis), but I do agree that the Soviets should have more fighters in the air. Lowering the prestige cost would be the only way I can see to accomplish that. I could go either way with regard to the Zhanna. Rivers have been a problem for me, but it's not the crossing over to get at the Russians that is the problem---the problem is that I stupidly allowed my forces to get backed up against a river without a crossing, which undoubtedly made Deducter very happy
All in all, I think the ICRS map is good, and the balance seems reasonable, with the possible exception of the aforementioned Soviet fighter costs.
All in all, I think the ICRS map is good, and the balance seems reasonable, with the possible exception of the aforementioned Soviet fighter costs.
Chance favours the prepared mind.
Hey Happycat, this was your first MP game right? I've played many games, so I have a significant edge in terms of experience. Don't feel so bad about losing, as long as you had a fun time, like I did.
The river crossings could've helped your forces escape, potentially. If it were near the airfield, for instance. You might've seen that and said, hmm, maybe I should retreat before they get pinned against the river.
As it currently stands, I will in future games try my best to lure units into that area, and crush them against the river. This would be much harder to do with 1 or 2 more crossings available.
The river crossings could've helped your forces escape, potentially. If it were near the airfield, for instance. You might've seen that and said, hmm, maybe I should retreat before they get pinned against the river.
As it currently stands, I will in future games try my best to lure units into that area, and crush them against the river. This would be much harder to do with 1 or 2 more crossings available.