SE Unit Question

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:34 am

The reason why SE units are not a reward for performance is that good player has a lot of other awards already, he does not need even more material bonuses, or the game might become too boring for him. Good players have more prestige, take less casualties and have an overall stronger core force. Poor player, on the other hand, needs all help he can get, and SE units can come very handy.

We could give SE units to poor players only (after all, High Command gives them "to ensure success of the operation", and the doubts about success can appear only in case the player has weak core force and bad results in past campaigns). But we wanted all players to enjoy the SE units and have some fun with them. After all, good players should not have a penalty for good performance either. So, all players have an equal chance to get an SE unit.

As for "SE units shop", we wanted SE units to serve a different purpose in the game. There are elements which you can plan (in particular equipment types of your units, green/elite replacements, overstrength) and elements which are random. Random elements add some variety to campaign replays because you cannot have them in just one "optimal" way, this aspect is not under your control. Heroes, as well as SE units, fall in this category.

So that's the reason why SE units work as they do.

Uhu · Post by **Uhu** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:44 am

You are right with this goal - I also made thoughts about it and I understand and accept, what you are talking about.

But I'm seeing also an another path: where the player has to make a DV, because, than he will get one (later more) extra unit, and without it, later he cannot make - or has a lover chance - another victories and so he cannot be on the "winner-path". So, another motivation for making a DV, where maybe the player has not to make a DV for staying on the "winner-path" (at scenarios, like Stalingrad) .

Rudankort wrote:The reason why SE units are not a reward for performance is that good player has a lot of other awards already, he does not need even more material bonuses, or the game might become too boring for him. Good players have more prestige, take less casualties and have an overall stronger core force. Poor player, on the other hand, needs all help he can get, and SE units can come very handy.

We could give SE units to poor players only (after all, High Command gives them "to ensure success of the operation", and the doubts about success can appear only in case the player has weak core force and bad results in past campaigns). But we wanted all players to enjoy the SE units and have some fun with them. After all, good players should not have a penalty for good performance either. So, all players have an equal chance to get an SE unit.

As for "SE units shop", we wanted SE units to serve a different purpose in the game. There are elements which you can plan (in particular equipment types of your units, green/elite replacements, overstrength) and elements which are random. Random elements add some variety to campaign replays because you cannot have them in just one "optimal" way, this aspect is not under your control. Heroes, as well as SE units, fall in this category.

So that's the reason why SE units work as they do.

AgentX · Post by **AgentX** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:45 pm

@Rudankort, was making the SE units awarded at set intervals (instead of being random) ever brought up during their design? You mentioned above that the "Poor player, on the other hand, needs all help he can get, and SE units can come very handy." Since they are random, "poor players" may not be getting the help they need. I've read of people's "bad luck" cases where they go the entire campaign without getting a single SE unit. Many people also don't know that you can just "cheat" and save/load until you get one (which allows you to get all three by your fourth scenario).

For instance, for the main campaign, the first one could be awarded for getting either a MV or DV at Poland as a reward for completing the first mission. The second SE unit could come after getting either a MV or DV at France and finishing off the "hated enemy". The third one could be awarded after the successful completion of Barborossa (MV or DV). This way, everyone gets all three of their SE units plus players won't be able to "cheat" and save/load until they get one. The other good thing about these particular map points (Poland, France and Barbarossa), besides being major historic aspects of the campaign, is that they are scenarios everyone goes through during the main campaign (major branching doesn't occur till later). They are also scenarios everyone has to win with either a MV or DV to continue (a loss ends the campaign).

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:13 pm

I've explained above why SE units are random.

There are elements which you can plan (in particular equipment types of your units, green/elite replacements, overstrength) and elements which are random. Random elements add some variety to campaign replays because you cannot have them in just one "optimal" way, this aspect is not under your control. Heroes, as well as SE units, fall in this category.

If they were added at fixed points, most part of randomness (except maybe exact type of units given) would be gone.

As for poor players, in their existing form SE units are not a reward, neither for good performance nor for poor, because, as I said, I did wanted to discriminate any of these groups. If we gave SE units only for poor performance, people would complain: "I play well, why did not I get a single SE unit?" or "I need to intentionally lose to get SE unit, it is stupid".

Casaubon · Post by **Casaubon** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:53 pm

I like the SE random unit system as is. I lost 3 SEs unintentionally in my France 40 DLC and still saved the game finishing with 1 SE only. I learned it´s more fun for me to enjoy such a random gift unexpectedly than reloading after losses.
Is it true you can get only infantry and tanks as SE? (As far as I can remember I had only different tank typess, some gebirgsjäger and some regular wehrmacht inf. during campaign play).

huertgenwald · Post by **huertgenwald** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:36 pm

Is it true you can get only infantry and tanks as SE?

Yes

macattack · Post by **macattack** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:20 pm

I thought I read somewhere that the SE units are based on SS units. SS was not German army but they formed military units.

I'm just curious, did the SS ever form an air unit? I know they formed infantry and tank units, which is probably why the SE units are only available in infantry and tanks.

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:26 pm

I don't think so. Or at least I've never heard.
But I'm no specialist, as far as it concerns to SS units.

DrkCon · Post by **DrkCon** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:48 pm

macattack wrote:I thought I read somewhere that the SE units are based on SS units. SS was not German army but they formed military units.

I'm just curious, did the SS ever form an air unit? I know they formed infantry and tank units, which is probably why the SE units are only available in infantry and tanks.

Not that I have ever heard. Tho there was a few SS Cossack Cavalry divisions (Mounted on horses) and parachute battalions.

macattack · Post by **macattack** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:56 pm

DrkCon wrote:
macattack wrote:I thought I read somewhere that the SE units are based on SS units. SS was not German army but they formed military units.

I'm just curious, did the SS ever form an air unit? I know they formed infantry and tank units, which is probably why the SE units are only available in infantry and tanks.

Not that I have ever heard. Tho there was a few SS Cossack Cavalry divisions (Mounted on horses) and parachute battalions.

Ooooh, SE cavalry or paratroopers.

That could be fun!

huertgenwald · Post by **huertgenwald** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:01 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS

Listed are :

Infantry
Gebirgsjaeger
Grenadiers
Tanks
Cavalry
Fallschirmjaeger
"Special Services" (Sabotage, Espionage)

bebro · Post by **bebro** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:39 am

Got my first SE - a Pz III, Moscow 43

Loki1942 · Post by **Loki1942** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:42 am

Concerning SE units, i am not above "exploiting" the system, i want my core force to be the best it can possibly be. However i am a stickler for reality, so i do not use only Tiger 2s but try and keep my forces varied. The enemy may bring on their best in droves, just let me have my core force the way i want it and i am a happy puppy.

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:24 am

Uhu wrote:Oh! Well, that's one aspect, why I don't like the actual SE units system. It is not a reward, not a "gift"/support for strategic planning - but a gamble. And it effects well the game balance. It is not the same, if you have 8, or 9 units (more than 10% difference). I would like to see more a reward-, or a buying method SE units system.

I second this.

I agree with Rudankort's assessment that everything can be exploited and that this is up to the player to decide.
Bad luck and good luck are part of the game and you have to plan with this in mind.

But unlike the campaign where it is up to me to decide how much I want to put my units at risk or not, this is nothing I can influence in any way at all. And just like Uhu said and with the planned increase of the number of SE units this will cause *balance problems*.

1939: 2
1940: 3
1941: 4

what were the numbers?

1942: 5
1943: 6
1944: 7
1945: 8

-> and actually I remember suggestions of 6, 8, 10, 12 for future DLCs.

Having 4 units more on the field is QUITE the advantage! Even if the core unit number and enemy numbers rise SE units will have a MAJOR impact on balance.

If the number of SE units is supposed to rise that high, a better system is really a MUST. Or they will have to be kept low. How many % of your core units do we want to have assigned by sheer luck? Some 20-30% of the core...?! Getting SE units awarded in the first scenarios of any campaign is a major advantage.

P.S. how many of the not so good players read the forum? It's us, the guys who really wouldn't need the SE units who know how they get assigned...
Following that logic SE units are there to make things even easier for experienced players... doh.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:01 pm

Longasc wrote: If the number of SE units is supposed to rise that high, a better system is really a MUST. Or they will have to be kept low. How many % of your core units do we want to have assigned by sheer luck? Some 20-30% of the core...?! Getting SE units awarded in the first scenarios of any campaign is a major advantage.

The only reason why there are plans to have more SE units in future DLCs is that the size of the core and size of scenarios will grow as well. But we shall see what is the best approach to this. SE units limit will not necessarily be that big.

Longasc wrote: P.S. how many of the not so good players read the forum? It's us, the guys who really wouldn't need the SE units who know how they get assigned...
Following that logic SE units are there to make things even easier for experienced players... doh.

I don't follow the logic here. With existing scheme all players benefit equally from SE units, no matter if they read the forum or not.

impar · Post by **impar** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:25 pm

Longasc wrote:And just like Uhu said and with the planned increase of the number of SE units this will cause *balance problems*.
1939: 2
1940: 3
1941: 4
what were the numbers?
1942: 5
1943: 6
1944: 7
1945: 8
-> and actually I remember suggestions of 6, 8, 10, 12 for future DLCs.
Having 4 units more on the field is QUITE the advantage! Even if the core unit number and enemy numbers rise SE units will have a MAJOR impact on balance.

Make them count as core units.
There would still be the advantage of not having purchased the unit.

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:52 pm

Rudankort wrote:I don't follow the logic here. With existing scheme all players benefit equally from SE units, no matter if they read the forum or not.

I had one SE infantry unit during my first Panzer Corps default campaign.
Then I read the forums. People had 3 units, even tanks. WTF. How are these units awarded, what did I do wrong?
There we go.

The extra unit / extra prestige when disbanding are just too much to be entirely random and an extra Tiger II SE or not later on will also make QUITE a difference and make this even worse.

I quite like impar's suggestion. It's simple and elegant.

Right now the campaign must be balanced for players having the CORE and 0-4 SE units on the map. If there should ever again be maps where the number of core units is restricted/exceeding the scenario limit, like Kiev in the default campaign, the SE units are even more influencing balance.

One of the best things about Panzer Corps is the scenario design. It's not overly difficult but challenging enough to keep people interested, something that didn't happen in Tiger II 5-Stars General. A difference of +/- 4 units should matter and it does.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:07 pm

The fact that bonus units do not take up a deployment slot is the single most important feature about them. If we remove this, the player would always be trapped in a dilemma - use his old veteran units, with more experience and maybe more heroes, or "cool" new SE units which do not have that yet. Either way you need to leave some unit in the reserve (or even disband it) because you only have one slot. I don't want the players to face decisions like that, this kills the RPG aspect of the campaign.

Right now the campaign is balanced against the average number of SE units you can have at any point. And no, I don't think that variations in bonus units number between replays is THAT significant. Even Tiger II is just one unit, and it appears very late in the war. Extra units are nice, but require more prestige to maintain too.

What we might want to do is make bonus units more uniformly distributed across the campaign, while still having them appearing at random moments. But this is again the good old RNG discussion, it has nothing to do with bonus unit rules per se.

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:17 pm

In the random is random / RNG debate I am on your side, but not regarding SE units.

I can't influence a random dice roll, but I have a choice when to take a risk or not, while the SE unit stuff is a pure gamble influenced by nothing at all. Even the weather is more predictable than SE unit assignment.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:46 pm

Longasc wrote: I can't influence a random dice roll, but I have a choice when to take a risk or not, while the SE unit stuff is a pure gamble influenced by nothing at all. Even the weather is more predictable than SE unit assignment.

That's right. So what is the problem exactly? You can't influence when and what heroes you will get either. This is the reason why one campaign play through is not the same as the other.

I realize that there are people who do not like random elements in gameplay at all, they prefer to have everything under control and plan ahead. But hey, we can't make everybody happy. That's what modding is for. Remove bonus units from eqp file altogether, preplace them in certain scenarios etc.