Prestige Crunch...

[Zhivago]

I accept that there are players like Zhivago who love to have the best of all units, and this doesn't offend me. You seem to be having a hard time in the DLC, which is why there's this testing process. I personally do have a reasonably challenging time with the DLC 43 core.

However, there are other beta testers who use the best of all units and steamrollers the AI, then complains that it is too easy. I am personally happy to modify the rules myself to make things harder, but then there are players who refuse to modify the rules and blame the developers for a boring product. So the issue is not as simple as it seems.

Remember the old game Contra? Even cheating to get thirty extra lives, I often couldn't beat it. Then there are people who can beat it without dying once. I understand what you're getting at, so don't take offense.

The point, deducter, is that even playing at colonel level with "top tier" equipment it is still very challenging to get a decisive victory. If it is very challenging to get a decisive victory at colonel with top tier equipment, then it has got to be incredibly difficult to get victories at higher levels with equipment from 1941.

Furthermore, the whole point of a campaign is to bring units along from scenario to scenario, year to year, all the while earning strength, experience, and heroes. That is the fun of the game to me. One of my favorite parts of the game is upgrading my units to the next strongest unit up. If you earn the prestige, why not spend it to make your force stronger? It is a ridiculous argument to say that someone who plays the way I do is somehow not playing in the spirit of the game.

[Zhivago]

I upgraded most of my panzer IVGs to Tigers at the start of the first scenario.

Are we really rewarding players for doing this? Is Colonel going to be balanced around the player have all Tigers and Panthers?

Yup. I think something was too easy/wrong when people can pimp their full core to FW190 and Tigers right away.

What exactly is wrong with it? I have three fighters, and yes, I upgraded them to FW190's. If these units become available, and you have earned the prestige, why delay buying them???

[charonjr]

I think I know what deducter means since I just saw it in the 3 turns I played in the Oboyan scenario (Kursk South). It is boring (at least to me) the watch the Soviet armored attack we get warned about in the briefing simply getting shot to pieces not due to good tactics, but simply due to good equipment - it looks they dont even dare to attack, but this might be a bug (but I am afraid it is not, the AI just knows that it has no chance).

For the purpose of this beta I will continue to play with a completely pimped-up core and there is even some hope that I will run out of prestige sooner or later, but the only reason for this (at least till this point) will be the Soviet airforce.

I really love upgrading my units and getting heroes, too, but if the result of this is a boring game I should do something to limit myself.

Playing Kharkov at FM with the default core was a lot more fun then simply smashing my way through anything the AI could throw at me due to having way superior units from my imported core.

The main point is that everything is fine as long as people can enjoy the game and have fun, but there is a danger that you might rob yourself of being able to enjoy the game if things are getting too easy and realising too late that you actually did just that.

[deducter]

This thread is getting completely off topic, so this will be my last post on the subject here at least. I really do not mean to offend anyone, but Zhivago keep in mind that while you may be struggling, others are coasting, and their opinions are as valid as yours.

The most important thing this tells me that for an expansion, there needs to be a much better difficulty system. Customization all the way!

I also wouldn't say that making things easier is always the way to go. Consider Civ5, with its pathetic AI that without trying a player like myself can steamroll without reading the rules carefully on the second highest difficulty in my first game. Civ4, on the other hand, was well-balanced, had a reasonably competent AI (especially in the BtS expansion), and it at least took me some time to get good enough to beat the second highest difficulty, although Deity still gives me trouble. Civ4 I've played many hundreds of hours worth, Civ5 was a massive waste of my $60. Yes that game sold well, but I will be very, very skeptical of any future games in the series. I think many veteran Civ players were fed up too. So making things easier is not always the best solution.

[Zhivago]

I think I know what deducter means since I just saw it in the 3 turns I played in the Oboyan scenario (Kursk South). It is boring (at least to me) the watch the Soviet armored attack we get warned about in the briefing simply getting shot to pieces not due to good tactics, but simply due to good equipment - it looks they dont even dare to attack, but this might be a bug (but I am afraid it is not, the AI just knows that it has no chance).

For the purpose of this beta I will continue to play with a completely pimped-up core and there is even some hope that I will run out of prestige sooner or later, but the only reason for this (at least till this point) will be the Soviet airforce.

I really love upgrading my units and getting heroes, too, but if the result of this is a boring game I should do something to limit myself.

Playing Kharkov at FM with the default core was a lot more fun then simply smashing my way through anything the AI could throw at me due to having way superior units from my imported core.

The main point is that everything is fine as long as people can enjoy the game and have fun, but there is a danger that you might rob yourself of being able to enjoy the game if things are getting too easy and realising too late that you actually did just that.

True, but as Kerensky said, beta testers are well-versed in this game. The average player is not, and will most likely be playing an easier level, at least to begin with. I thought one of the things we are trying to test here in the beta version is how the game plays for the average joe player. Not everyone is going to be playing FM Manstein.

[Zhivago]

This thread is getting completely off topic, so this will be my last post on the subject here at least. I really do not mean to offend anyone, but Zhivago keep in mind that while you may be struggling, others are coasting, and their opinions are as valid as yours.

The most important thing this tells me that for an expansion, there needs to be a much better difficulty system. Customization all the way!

I also wouldn't say that making things easier is always the way to go. Consider Civ5, with its pathetic AI that without trying a player like myself can steamroll without reading the rules carefully on the second highest difficulty in my first game. Civ4, on the other hand, was well-balanced, had a reasonably competent AI (especially in the BtS expansion), and it at least took me some time to get good enough to beat the second highest difficulty, although Deity still gives me trouble. Civ4 I've played many hundreds of hours worth, Civ5 was a massive waste of my $60. Yes that game sold well, but I will be very, very skeptical of any future games in the series. I think many veteran Civ players were fed up too. So making things easier is not always the best solution.

I am not struggling with DLC 43--I've won every scenario thus far through Oboyan with decisive victories. My point in my original post was just that the prestige awarded after each battle seems insufficient, even at colonel level. I started Kharkov with 15,000 in prestige, and I'm pretty much at zero through most of the campaign after upgrading wounded units (and I only upgrade with veteran units).

I am also a Civ fan, starting with the original back in the early 90's which I played on my intel 386. I thought Civ III and IV were great, but I never bought Civ 5 because of the bad reviews. I also played Panzer General from 1995. I also spent countless hours playing Panzer General multi-player on the Mplayer game network in the late 90s. I haven't played Panzer Corps multi-player yet, but one thing I learned in playing multi-player is that you can play the game at the hardest setting against the AI, but when you play a human player, all of that goes right out of the window.

[monkspider]

I think the key thing to remember is that at the end of the day, the game has to be balanced around the average joe players. If a player like Longsac, who is considerably better than the average joe is struggling with the default core and if I am struggling even with an imported core, then there is a problem. Not to take away from the opinions of the super pros, this beta definitely needs the feedback of advanced players of their caliber as well. But remember that there are casual players who might not even know that these forums exist who buy the product, and they have to be considered the baseline that the game should be tuned to. If Longsac and I are struggling, then I think that says it all about the prospects of these players. I do appreciate that prestige should a bit harder to come by than in previous DLCs to reflect the diminishing fortunes of the Wehrmacht but if we go too far in this direction then the game is no fun.

Of course, the obvious rebuttal is that if the game is too easy then it is no fun either, as CharonJr himself has already stated. It was always inevitable that the further a long campaign like this goes on, there would be a greater divergence of prestige accumulation and core quality. I certainly mean to slight to our super-pros, but it still seems logical that we should tune the game based on the performance of the 99% rather than the 1%, no reference to current political events intended.

[Zhivago]

I just replayed Kharkov 43 at General level with an imported core. No noticeable difference as to AI strength/tactics from Colonel level, but prestige is obviously in shorter supply.

[Longasc]

I would like to second monkspider.
The DLC can't cater to the extremes like Hannibal Reborn and Captain Casual so a healthy medium of difficulty has to be found.
Right now it seems rather the exception than the norm that people have too much Prestige and an easy time!
Feedback has been good so far, though I would wish for some more different opinions of different testers to voice their concerns and impressions or possible bugs.

Kerensky already mentioned that Prestige will be mostly doubled and difficulty might get lowered. I think that's good. I will continue Orel tonight and hope that my troops are still in fighting shape with some reserves for Kursk after that.

The thread is getting derailed a lot.

I think nobody wanted to offend anyone here, so please STOP being offended and getting defensive.
Seriously, guys!

[ivanov]

I am sorry for my neglible input into this discussion so far, but this week my work barely allows me to progress with the DLC 43 beta test.

I am keen practitioner of "self flagellation" myself, but we need to cast aside our personal preferences and try to think of what the average player expects from the game and that is simply to win it. I play with a default core, with no heroes on the colonel level. After completingn of the two first scenarios, I have almost no prestige left ( however I haven't suffered any serious casualties ). I won't be able to upgrade any of my units before the "Orel" scenario. I will also need to use regular replacements, so the actual combat potential of my core will decrease. It's fine for me, but I wonder if I will be able to progress with the game if I take some serious loses.

I agree with Kerensky that doubling the initial prestige is the right way to go.

[Zhivago]

I upgraded most of my panzer IVGs to Tigers at the start of the first scenario.

Are we really rewarding players for doing this? Is Colonel going to be balanced around the player have all Tigers and Panthers?

Yup. I think something was too easy/wrong when people can pimp their full core to FW190 and Tigers right away.

Longsac, I am a pretty easy going guy, but when I read your above post about it being "wrong" for people (presumably like me) to "pimp their core" with top tier units, I understandably did not take it as a friendly compliment. Don't give me a reason to get defensive and I won't be! 'nuff said!

[Mountaineer]

Perhaps older tanks can be reduced in price as newer tanks are introduced. It represents some redistribution in the Wehrmacht.

Also, why not have a cap on the purchases? Perhaps X # of Panthers or Tigers?

[El_Condoro]

Perhaps older tanks can be reduced in price as newer tanks are introduced. It represents some redistribution in the Wehrmacht.

Also, why not have a cap on the purchases? Perhaps X # of Panthers or Tigers?

In the absence of a cap, what I've done with my efile is have an 'interim' unit with a maximum strength of 5-6. That way, the M-26 Pershing, for example, becomes available in early 1945 with a maximum (experience not considered) strength of 6. Players can then use the Pershing but it doesn't dominate the battlefield as much, tipping the hat to historical considerations.

That said, I have noticed that the AI will charge top dollar for new units and replacements even if the unit has a maximum strength less than 10. I'll confirm this when I next test it.

[deducter]

Perhaps older tanks can be reduced in price as newer tanks are introduced. It represents some redistribution in the Wehrmacht.

Also, why not have a cap on the purchases? Perhaps X # of Panthers or Tigers?

In the absence of a cap, what I've done with my efile is have an 'interim' unit with a maximum strength of 5-6. That way, the M-26 Pershing, for example, becomes available in early 1945 with a maximum (experience not considered) strength of 6. Players can then use the Pershing but it doesn't dominate the battlefield as much, tipping the hat to historical considerations.

That said, I have noticed that the AI will charge top dollar for new units and replacements even if the unit has a maximum strength less than 10. I'll confirm this when I next test it.

A player can always impose his own caps. Just buy 2 Tigers and 3 Panthers, or some combination thereof, and don't buy more. A coded cap will annoy certain players, while not having a coded cap certainly doesn't force you to buy all Tigers. The content is balanced around a historical force, so if you use the best of equipment and find the game too easy, play on a higher difficulty.

Now that I know each DLC can have its own equipment file, I plan on having some big changes in DLC 1943 compared with the previous ones. Tigers and Panthers will be very expensive, probably 2.5-3x the price of Panzer IVs, which will be cheaper relative to their cost in 1942. I also plan on making Panzer IIIs and StuG IIIs cheaper compared to 1942. Furthermore reduction in costs come in 1944, and even Panthers will be a little cheaper then. Unit stats can also be changed, for instance, the Elefant can have 2 SA in 1943 and 5 SA in 1944-1945 since they got a machine gun installed. Panzer IIs can be made upgradeable to the Marder II and the P38(t) to the Marder III. So much potential here for modding.

Just out of curiosity, how does setting the maximum strength of the heavy tanks work out for you El_Condoro? How do you employ them?

[El_Condoro]

Just out of curiosity, how does setting the maximum strength of the heavy tanks work out for you El_Condoro? How do you employ them?

Very well in the testing of Red Dawn that I've done. The first M-26 is attached to the player's core by SHAEF as auxiliary, which becomes core if they can keep it alive for the first scenario (scripting). Then I have 3 M-26s that only vary by their maximum strength (6, 8 and 10) and use their availability dates for when they can be bought or used as upgrades. They are still powerful but nowhere near as much as if a 10 strength one could be bought at any time. They can and do still become powerful - by staying alive, upgrading and elite replacements. Even a 6 point M-26 can become an 11 point one - possibly.

The problem with having a massively expensive heavy tank is that you can't reinforce just part of the unit - you have to go from 1, as an extreme example, to 10 or not at all. There is also no ability for a designer to set a maximum size for even auxiliary units - something that has been available in PG2 since the beginning. That's why I have tried to circumvent these limitations to some extent. It's still expensive to upgrade but as a 6 point Pershing is not that much more useful than a 10 strength Sherman 76mm it becomes less of a distraction. Which was US tank use, anyway, and why they didn't produce M-26s in great quantities.