Prestige issues

[lwchen]

Version 2 increased the amount of prestige between scenarios, but the amount you gain during a scenario might need adjustment.

Tigers and Panthers cost way more than earlier tanks, but the amount of prestige we gain from taking an objective hasn't really changed. So casualties taken during a scenario often don't get replaced. Here's an example.

Your 14 strength Tiger gets caught on rough terrain and is knocked down to 3. You have 3 options.

1. Elite replacements to 10 strength for 400 or so prestige. Ouch.
2. Green replacements to 10 strength for 100 or so prestige and lose half your experience. Umm no.
3. Move it to safety till the next scenario where it can be brought back to 10 strength for half the cost.

We don't have the option of mixing elite and green replacements so I end up with option 3 way more often than I'd like. I can't afford the elites, and really don't want to lose all that experience after 4 campaigns. The only way around it is to go into a scenario with a nice prestige reserve, but that means less equipment upgrades.

I play on Field Marshall difficulty, and with all those armored counterattacks this happens quite often. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, in fact it significantly alters my playstyle and provides a nice challenge. But just a few tiny mistakes and half your armored force is left on the sidelines for the rest of the scenario because you can't afford the replacements.

[El_Condoro]

There is a 4th option and the one that I think should be encouraged more - use Pz IIIs and IVs like the historical Germans did. They cost less to replace and will increase the challenge level instead of going with the best equipment all the time. Historically, Tigers were at a premium and divisions could field a company of them *at best* and Panthers were also as well as going through teething problems. I see the 43 DLCs having a lot more Tigers than this. The option is always there to play an a-historical OOB but it comes at a price - as you've highlighted.

[deducter]

There are some players who just have an absolute abundance (40k charonjr? I still don't know how he got that much, to be honest), and others who struggle to have enough. It does seem prestige is much more of an issue in DLC43, but it's already been increased, and I am not in favor of increasing it yet again.

Historically Kursk was not kind to the German army. Sure in terms of absolute losses the Russians suffered much more, but after Kursk the Germans literally ran out of reserves (doesn't help that troops had to be rushed to Italy to fend off the Western Allies), whereas the Russians had enough troops left over to launch two major offensives simultaneously. I think prestige being more of an issue reflects the declining fortunes of the German army.

And personally I think by now and especially in 1944 and 1945, DVs should not be easy to achieve, especially on Field Marshal. My opinion is that DV should be something rare and a truly worthwhile achievement, while MV should be pretty easy to accomplishment, but the developers thus far have disagreed and made DV more or less the standard outcome, as anything less seems unacceptable to most players for some reason. But this opinion is decidedly in the minority.

I do understand why you hesitate to hit that normal reinforce button though, the experience rate being cut in half does hurt on FM.

[Kerensky]

The problem with shifting end scenario prestige to mid scenario prestige (via per turn injection or other means) is that it creates a discrepancy in the amount of prestige players receive.
Players who milk scenarios by intentionally stalling their victory build up more and more prestige if injections are present, this was a big problem of the stock campaign we've tried to eliminate. It's why no DLC scenarios have per turn injections, except for a few defensive scenarios.
Linking prestige to objectives also creates a problem where some people might miss out on these boosts. There is no way to communicate to a player that X hex is worth an extra 500 prestige to capture, it just happens when the trigger conditions are fulfilled.

With the majority of prestige allocated for completing scenarios, we are assured that everyone is getting at least that much prestige. A big part of the game is prestige management, and if you spend it all away during the deploy phase to upgrade and overstrength everything, that's a risk you are taking.

The bottom line, you should assume you get very little prestige during a scenario(only for capturing flags) because there is no system to communicate to the player how or where they get prestige during a scenario. So plan accordingly!

[Kerensky]

And personally I think by now and especially in 1944 and 1945, DVs should not be easy to achieve, especially on Field Marshal. My opinion is that DV should be something rare and a truly worthwhile achievement, while MV should be pretty easy to accomplishment, but the developers thus far have disagreed and made DV more or less the standard outcome, as anything less seems unacceptable to most players for some reason. But this opinion is decidedly in the minority.

I do understand why you hesitate to hit that normal reinforce button though, the experience rate being cut in half does hurt on FM.

Feedback and time and time (BETA and LIVE) again proven that players, when struggling, will not settle for the easy minor victories and use that time to rebuild their damaged forces back to strength. They will push their core to breaking, gain a Pyrrhic decisive victory, and think prestige is too tight/difficulty is too high. That's just a gaming mentality and human behavior.

Really, you can go through pretty much the entire DLC campaign riding on minor victories (you'll miss out on some captured equipment and bonus scenarios) and have a really easy time with the game. But that's not fun, people want to win BIG, as big as they can.

[monkspider]

The prestige felt pretty good with the most recent version, it is still tight, but I think at a reasonable level.

Kerensky, would you say that the "artistic intent" behind the prestige levels in this DLC was meant to convey the slow, grinding down of the the Wehrmacht during this period of history? I do like that you actually managed to keep me from using very many Tigers/Panthers. I had two Tigers and two Panthers by the end, and the rest Panzers/KVs/StuGs/Marders. It seems like you have enough prestige to either overstrength most of your units or upgrade them but not both. I did go the route of settling for marginal victories in some of the battles but I think I would have been better off if I did even more!

[Longasc]

I would like to point to my Oboyan report. I had only 107 left and stopped. I already intended to go for a minor right from the start, but with 107 Prestige I really wasn't given the choice.

True, we tend to use way more Tigers than historically. I wonder how a player would have done with StuGs and Panzer IV.
-> I didn't overstrengthen any unit since the start of the 1943 campaign.
While I didn't hesitate to use elite reinforcements a lot till 1941 and mid 1942, Prestige is now getting way tighter.

I think more player reports are needed. Tigers are not Prestige eaters, they can also preserve Prestige by taking less damage. I don't drive my Tigers in close terrain or let them attack Infantry in cities unless it's 100% suppressed by artillery fire etc.

I think this needs more testing and more reports how people are doing prestige wise.
It was not my armor that was grounded, but my airforce was left damaged and I couldn't repair the 109s and tac bombers anymore.

Prestige is very tight and I am not sure if "cheaper" units will really be cheaper in the long run. StuGs might be a good choice. I think I remember to have read future DLCs will have smaller cores, this might be helpful.

Don't forget we fight on huge maps by now, with unprecedented numbers of units, and they are way stronger than in 1940/41.

So well, I hope people report some more about their Prestige. The problem is also testing takes way longer with huge maps and many units, not a complaint, just an observation. Would like to finally test Prokhorovka and co but the scenarios are really challenging and I really can't go faster.

[deducter]

I think this needs more testing and more reports how people are doing prestige wise.
It was not my armor that was grounded, but my airforce was left damaged and I couldn't repair the 109s and tac bombers anymore.

In 1943 the Soviets started to gain more and more of an upper hand in the air, although at Kursk the Germans could gain local superiority at times. But really the Luftwaffe shouldn't be allowed to ran rampant anymore.

It might be best for you to not use your fighters in an offensive capacity and aggressive clear out the Soviet air units. Don't think in it was in 1939-1942, that every AI air unit needs to die immediately. Instead hold your fighters back, and lure the Soviet planes into your FlaK, then hit them with both FlaK and your fighters. Kill a 1-2 a turn, and damage some others where possible, as they will often retreat to repair. Then repeat. Keep at least 2, maybe 3 FlaK 88s, and also you often get aux FlaK units to help you out.

The key thing is to realize that achieving air superiority aggressively is a Pyrrhic victory, and you should be much more judicious in your use of your fighters. I personally am very impressed with how this design choice. No longer should we run into a situation like Bagration from the original campaign where you can kill the Soviet Air Force in 3-4 turns, then ran rampant with Ju 87G and kill Soviet armor left and right.

[ivanov]

I think this needs more testing and more reports how people are doing prestige wise.
It was not my armor that was grounded, but my airforce was left damaged and I couldn't repair the 109s and tac bombers anymore.

In 1943 the Soviets started to gain more and more of an upper hand in the air, although at Kursk the Germans could gain local superiority at times. But really the Luftwaffe shouldn't be allowed to ran rampant anymore.

I agree. Throught this DLC I've been using my air assets rather to protect my ground units, than sending Stukas to obliterate the Soviet tanks indiscriminately. And that's the way it should be - it's 1943 for for god's sake! The Soviets are not only more numerous but also better qualitatively and that includes the Red Eagels of uncle Stalin too
Don't forget, that as we speak, the treacherous Allies are establishing a firm foothold on the Italian soil and the Mediterranean is constantly sucking up our reserves ( that includes our precious Luftwaffe ).

Someting tells me Herr General, that we may lose this war at the end...

[charonjr]

The 8.8 is too immobile for my taste, due to this I started to buy SPAA (7/2) and while they do way less damage than the 8.8 they end up being more usefull to me due to their mobility. In addition they are very nice for protecting advance units from bombings.

[taffjones]

What is the diffrence in prestige awarded at the end of a senario if you achive a MV compared to a DV?

[Longasc]

You get more and maybe a choice in campaign progression, but how much more depends entirely on the scenario.

[taffjones]

Thanks Longasc, not knowing makes it difficult to decide when its best to hold back and take a MV or take the risk and go for a DV and possably lose a unit or two, or at least suffer some heavy lose to its strength and then have to replace or re-enforce them.

[deducter]

Thanks Longasc, not knowing makes it difficult to decide when its best to hold back and take a MV or take the risk and go for a DV and possably lose a unit or two, or at least suffer some heavy lose to its strength and then have to replace or re-enforce them.

You get more prestige by going for DV (both in terms of flags captured and in terms of scenario rewards, but chances are you will take more damage getting to DV (your repair bill will be higher). So to preserve the strength of your core, going for MV usually works out better.

[lwchen]

After playing through the DLC on General difficulty (without incident btw) I think the prestige is fine. But on FM it's really tight. That's OK, FM is supposed to be hard. Safest way to do some scenarios is eschew DV to save prestige ... something I think the designers had in mind.

[Longasc]

Don't be shy to state when you think a scenario could use some Prestige.

I think the final scenario is also a bit tight on Prestige (Kiev 43). But it really depends, once and if you start conquering it really fills up. Tricky to balance this.