I hope there is more of an effort to incorporate hard branching paths in DLC 43 and beyond. The thing is, while it is understandable that the developers don't want to make scenarios that are too hard. However, I feel this is a mistake. The easier path should be fairly simple and straight forward, but the hard paths should be really hard. The MV in the hard path should be hard fought, and the DV significantly more difficulty than MV. Currently, it sounds like the hard path might be more challenging than the easier path, but by how much? I'm bored by winning DV again and again on the first try. That makes a second playthrough less interesting, since I don't have any real improvements on my campaign to strive for.
Perhaps a WOW analogy would work here. Ulduar was probably Blizzard's best raid in terms of both design and story, with many many degrees of difficulty. Most hard modes in that raid was an actual twist on the fight instead of simply toggling a raid frame switch and make the boss hit harder with one extra ability (although most bosses did also get a stat buff in HM Ulduar). Not all the hard modes were created equal either. The best example is the final boss, ol' Yoggy, and the 4, 1, and especially 0 keeper fights are all quite different (admittedly 1 keeper just requires playing a perfect version of 4, but that's easier said than done).
On the other hand, a WOW analogy might not be best, since Blizzard always nerfs their fights after a while. Since PzC can't really do that, perhaps you've erred on the side of caution. It's certainly understandable that you can't make DLCs to appeal only to players like myself. Still, difficulty can often be a good thing, and I firmly believe more difficult games have a greater longevity than easier ones. Easier ones though seem to sell better in general. I think PzC is a game built for the long-haul, that players would enjoy this game 5, 10 years from now. But the more people play, the better they get, and hence this is why there should be truly difficult missions for players to enjoy.
I don't know how other players feel about this. After all, the forums attract only a small fraction of the total player base, and the beta tests an even smaller number. Still, I know there are extremely good players who always never post on the forums, like Rusikcanuk and Dam (from MP). It might be interesting to hear whether they agree with me.
Disclaimer: I have not played the "easier" paths in DLC 42, although based on the reports, the Stalingrad Ruins branch does not appear significantly easier than the Escape from Stalingrad branch.
Hard Mode Path(s)
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Re: Hard Mode Path(s)
Now that's just confusing to hear.deducter wrote:I hope there is more of an effort to incorporate hard branching paths in DLC 43 and beyond. The thing is, while it is understandable that the developers don't want to make scenarios that are too hard. However, I feel this is a mistake. The easier path should be fairly simple and straight forward, but the hard paths should be really hard. The MV in the hard path should be hard fought, and the DV significantly more difficulty than MV. Currently, it sounds like the hard path might be more challenging than the easier path, but by how much? I'm bored by winning DV again and again on the first try. That makes a second playthrough less interesting, since I don't have any real improvements on my campaign to strive for.
deducter wrote:I am not ashamed to admit that I got my ass completely kicked by the AI on Manstein without spoiler information. I am certainly not good enough to win on Manstein without knowing something about the maps, and I lost so many core units that continuing would be unplayable. Part of the reason is that I had very little prestige going in, having spent all of it previously, and I had severely neglected my core due to how easy DLC 41 beta was. So I restarted with the same core on Rommel difficulty. I could simply restart the scenario on Manstein, and I’d be confident that I can win, but that’ll probably apply for most maps (needing to restart), and I’d prefer to go through these scenarios without restarting. So I guess the first playthrough will be on an easier difficulty.
I don't think we'll see much expansion on this hard mode concept. It's too exclusive by its very nature. We'll still offer minor scenario branches where one path may be more difficult than the other, but not significantly so and such a branch would have a somewhat limited length and have to include safety/backdoor escape mechanisms for players such as this:
viewtopic.php?t=31335
Bottom line, content is not made for our few super elite players. These players find their true content through the expanded difficulty settings and should they prove too easy, there's that 'ultimate' mode I remember a few people mention before.
My point is that exclusivity isn't necessarily a bad thing. I remember hard games and challenges, which have much better replay value. Rarely have I gone, "Wow, that game was so easy, I'm going to play it again!"
It seems gaming has advanced in almost every area, except for AI. I don't think there is a strategy game out there where the AI can fight the player on even terms and at least achieve a 50/50 win ratio. So that leaves two ways to make the game interesting: MP, or giving the AI massive advantages either via rules or via scenario design. I guess I would rather the AI be more difficult via scenario design rather than game rules.
Manstein, Rommel, etc. feel like giving the AI a massive bonus, like doubling the hp/damage for enemies in a RPG. You could also add more enemies, give them more powers/abilities. Or in a boss fight, you could just give the boss more damage/hp. Or you could give the boss several more abilities and switch up his attack patterns.
What I'm saying may be unclear, but I'll try to illustrate with another example. My favorite RPG is Baldur's Gate 2 and its expansion. The base game is entertaining, but hardly challenging. There are modders who have worked on a large variety of mods. For the mods that add difficulty, there are basically two main approaches: either buffing the enemy by giving them massive damage/resistances, or via better AI/scripting, and adjusting the fights so that the AI has more balanced force compositions (but the stats for any individual monster isn't significantly changed). For anyone who is familiar with the BG2 modding scene, it's basically Improved Anvil vs. Sword Coast Stratagems. I feel the latter approach is much more entertaining than the former.
I guess what's being said that is the player can impose his own variant rules if things aren't challenging enough. Maybe require having a balanced core, like requiring 1 INF/1 TANK/1 AT/1 AA unit for ground forces. Or saying that a player may not have more than 2 identical units, so for instance, this allows having 2 PzIVG, 2 PzIVF/2, and 2 PzIVF, but not 3 PzIVG and 3 PzIVF/2, or 2 PzIVG and 4 PzIVF. And one can dream up an almost infinite variety of other such rules to make game play more interesting.
I do understand the reason for designing the DLCs to be accessible, nor do I begrudge the designers for that.
It seems gaming has advanced in almost every area, except for AI. I don't think there is a strategy game out there where the AI can fight the player on even terms and at least achieve a 50/50 win ratio. So that leaves two ways to make the game interesting: MP, or giving the AI massive advantages either via rules or via scenario design. I guess I would rather the AI be more difficult via scenario design rather than game rules.
Manstein, Rommel, etc. feel like giving the AI a massive bonus, like doubling the hp/damage for enemies in a RPG. You could also add more enemies, give them more powers/abilities. Or in a boss fight, you could just give the boss more damage/hp. Or you could give the boss several more abilities and switch up his attack patterns.
What I'm saying may be unclear, but I'll try to illustrate with another example. My favorite RPG is Baldur's Gate 2 and its expansion. The base game is entertaining, but hardly challenging. There are modders who have worked on a large variety of mods. For the mods that add difficulty, there are basically two main approaches: either buffing the enemy by giving them massive damage/resistances, or via better AI/scripting, and adjusting the fights so that the AI has more balanced force compositions (but the stats for any individual monster isn't significantly changed). For anyone who is familiar with the BG2 modding scene, it's basically Improved Anvil vs. Sword Coast Stratagems. I feel the latter approach is much more entertaining than the former.
I guess what's being said that is the player can impose his own variant rules if things aren't challenging enough. Maybe require having a balanced core, like requiring 1 INF/1 TANK/1 AT/1 AA unit for ground forces. Or saying that a player may not have more than 2 identical units, so for instance, this allows having 2 PzIVG, 2 PzIVF/2, and 2 PzIVF, but not 3 PzIVG and 3 PzIVF/2, or 2 PzIVG and 4 PzIVF. And one can dream up an almost infinite variety of other such rules to make game play more interesting.
I do understand the reason for designing the DLCs to be accessible, nor do I begrudge the designers for that.
Not if the Amulet no longer reduce casting time, and the robe is reduced to -2 casting speed and moved to a lich on the fourth level of Watcher's Keep, so it comes very late in the game. That lich also benefits from the improved scripting AND makes use of the Robe+ timestop/improved alacrity to do some serious damage.
Admittedly the modding efforts are comprehensive and think about all aspects, everything from items and spells to the enemy designs. I like Item Revisions, Spell Revisions, and SCS. So this does also include a "nerf the player" component, rather significantly in the case of certain abilities/items. For instance, SCS has a component that makes all the Mage Level 10 spells castable 1/day as an innate ability, so no more abusing Improved Alacrity. But the Revisions mods also buff the weaker items/spells so that they too can be useful, in the case of Item Revisions, the most OP items have been weakened but a lot of lesser items have significant buffs. The old cloak of cheese (AKA Cloak of Mirroring) no longer grants immunity to all damage spells, but instead gives a permanent level 1 spell Reflected Image, which has the net effect of reducing melee damage by 50%. Still very good, but no longer godly. A simpler approach could simply be to remove all the OP items and reduce enchantment level of all items by half, and it would make the game harder, but not more fun.
But this isn't really a forum to discuss BG2 modding efforts... I only hoped that I could illustrate the different approaches to game difficulty design.
The major problem with the scripting approach is the time commitment involved to do these mods. Obviously the PzC game designers are under time constraints, and rightly so, otherwise we'd still be waiting for DLC 42 in 2013! But it worth thinking about the brute force approach vs. the scripting approach.
Admittedly the modding efforts are comprehensive and think about all aspects, everything from items and spells to the enemy designs. I like Item Revisions, Spell Revisions, and SCS. So this does also include a "nerf the player" component, rather significantly in the case of certain abilities/items. For instance, SCS has a component that makes all the Mage Level 10 spells castable 1/day as an innate ability, so no more abusing Improved Alacrity. But the Revisions mods also buff the weaker items/spells so that they too can be useful, in the case of Item Revisions, the most OP items have been weakened but a lot of lesser items have significant buffs. The old cloak of cheese (AKA Cloak of Mirroring) no longer grants immunity to all damage spells, but instead gives a permanent level 1 spell Reflected Image, which has the net effect of reducing melee damage by 50%. Still very good, but no longer godly. A simpler approach could simply be to remove all the OP items and reduce enchantment level of all items by half, and it would make the game harder, but not more fun.
But this isn't really a forum to discuss BG2 modding efforts... I only hoped that I could illustrate the different approaches to game difficulty design.
The major problem with the scripting approach is the time commitment involved to do these mods. Obviously the PzC game designers are under time constraints, and rightly so, otherwise we'd still be waiting for DLC 42 in 2013! But it worth thinking about the brute force approach vs. the scripting approach.
What scripts? What we have is what we have and they are already pushed to the maximum.
Such a significant addition to the game would almost certainly be reserved for a large scale expansion.
I'd say more but....
Such a significant addition to the game would almost certainly be reserved for a large scale expansion.
I'd say more but....
lordzimoa wrote:We have a working schedule well into 2013 in place for Panzer Corps.
We will and cannot go into details, but behind the scenes there is a lot more going on and coming, besides the DLC `s that is. When, how, what... no comments at this point, just that we are working and planned way ahead already.
You will just have to wait, have faith and be patient.
But support and continuous development are guaranteed for at least the next 18-24 months.
Cheers,
Tim aka LZ
To be clear, I will say this: DLC 42 is the hardest of the DLCs, with many epic scenarios. Unlike DLC 41 where I lost only recon units, in DLC 42 I lost a variety of different units and had a blast with many scenarios. So don't mistake my criticism for dislike of the game. On the contrary, DLC 42 is the best DLC by far!
I started playing DLC 40 with my modified equipment rules and -75% prestige, and wow was it hard. I lost NINE units in the 3 missions of the French path, which would be acceptable if uncomfortable losses under Manstein, but absolutely brutal with my current settings. Admittedly I played somewhat poorly and way too aggressively, but still, it was definitely challenging. Somehow I kept getting DVs, but they are already starting to feel like Pyrrhic victories.
So I guess Kerensky is right, for now, the best way to challenge myself is with customizing rules.
HOWEVER, for an expansion, I expect to see customized difficulty settings AND improved AI, for instance, getting the AI to fire its artillery first then attack. For the DLCs, I shouldn't complain too much.
So I guess Kerensky is right, for now, the best way to challenge myself is with customizing rules.
HOWEVER, for an expansion, I expect to see customized difficulty settings AND improved AI, for instance, getting the AI to fire its artillery first then attack. For the DLCs, I shouldn't complain too much.
I agree with you man!!! It is very hard, especially a lots of supprise counterattack from enemy side:) A I thing that SMG units are very hard KV-5 in real war? I thought that it was only plan, not real unit:-) I lost only few recon unit and some of infantry but I rather have infantery than tanks:) so not so big problem:) I enjoy for tigers and panthers in 43':-)