almost little things punches me hard in the stomache

[brettz123]

I actually almost never use my infantry in DLC43. I found it completely unnecessary. Just roll up with some tanks and some artillery and anything in a city goes down in one turn. Now granted my core is skewed very artillery heavy with 13 units (7 towed, 3 wurfrahmen, and 3 Su-122s) but still there is no need for infantry at that point. They are too slow and have very little survivability.

[ivanov]

The nature of combat in DLC 42 and 43 makes German infantry very specialized units that can be fragile at times. It goes without saying that infantry is best against soft targets, city-fighting, and killing armor that ventures into cities, forests, or on hills. In DLC 42 and 43, most, if not all, enemy "soft-targets" are very well entrenched to begin with. Unless you are attacking Russian conscript units, it is unwise in many situations for an infantry unit to try and take on a soft target without some artillery suppression. Also, because there are a lot of open spaces in DLC 43, if a German infantry unit manages to get out in front of German armor in flat hex space without the protection of hills or trees, I have found that the infantry unit becomes a magnet for Russian armored units, and even Russian infantry units. German infantry become road-kill for Russian armor on open hexes. As such, when I play I always try to keep them behind my armor, and close to supporting arty units. I usually bring them forward only for "kill moves" after armor has blasted/blocked other threats from the front and flanks. I currently have about eight or nine infantry in my core, and even though they are fragile, I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to successfully play the scenarios without them.

Those are all valid tactics and I don't think than anyone would like to see the infantry holding against tanks in the open terrain.

But let's not miss the main point here - I couldn't agree more with El Condoro - the main problem are not the players units ( that can be always used wisely and according to their merits and maybe most of all their limitations ), but the AI infantry units, which are too easy to suppress and defeat even in the close terrain ( especially by the heavier tanks ). Hexes like cities, forests and swamps, should be absolute no-go areas for the tanks. Right now, one salvo from the artillery suffice for the tanks to clear the infantry from any type of close terrain. I am going to repeat myself, but the entrenchement does not protect the infantry enough from the effects of suppression either.

[Zhivago]

The nature of combat in DLC 42 and 43 makes German infantry very specialized units that can be fragile at times. It goes without saying that infantry is best against soft targets, city-fighting, and killing armor that ventures into cities, forests, or on hills. In DLC 42 and 43, most, if not all, enemy "soft-targets" are very well entrenched to begin with. Unless you are attacking Russian conscript units, it is unwise in many situations for an infantry unit to try and take on a soft target without some artillery suppression. Also, because there are a lot of open spaces in DLC 43, if a German infantry unit manages to get out in front of German armor in flat hex space without the protection of hills or trees, I have found that the infantry unit becomes a magnet for Russian armored units, and even Russian infantry units. German infantry become road-kill for Russian armor on open hexes. As such, when I play I always try to keep them behind my armor, and close to supporting arty units. I usually bring them forward only for "kill moves" after armor has blasted/blocked other threats from the front and flanks. I currently have about eight or nine infantry in my core, and even though they are fragile, I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to successfully play the scenarios without them.

Those are all valid tactics and I don't think than anyone would like to see the infantry holding against tanks in the open terrain.

But let's not miss the main point here - I couldn't agree more with El Condoro - the main problem are not the players units ( that can be always used wisely and according to their merits and maybe most of all their limitations ), but the AI infantry units, which are too easy to suppress and defeat even in the close terrain ( especially by the heavier tanks ). Hexes like cities, forests and swamps, should be absolute no-go areas for the tanks. Right now, one salvo from the artillery suffice for the tanks to clear the infantry from any type of close terrain. I am going to repeat myself, but the entrenchement does not protect the infantry enough from the effects of suppression either.

Then what are you proposing? Weakening the effects of artillery against Russian units that are in forests, trenches, or cities? If a unit has an entrenchment of 5, perhaps it should take five hits instead of two to completely suppress it. Altering the strength of artillery vs. infantry is going to change the balance of the game.

[ivanov]

Yes, I would like to see the game rebalanced. I know it is not going to happen any time soon and maybe those are suggestions more appropiate for the "Project Panzer Corps 2", but a constructive discussion is always the best thing to begin with . I think that this kind of feedback from the community is valuable and necessary. I think that there are lot of players out there, who are passionate about the game and who would like to see some aspects of it improved and rebalanced. This thread is the best example of it

[Zhivago]

Yes, I would like to see the game rebalanced. I know it is not going to happen any time soon and maybe those are suggestions more appropiate for the "Project Panzer Corps 2", but a constructive discussion is always the best thing to begin with . I think that this kind of feedback from the community is valuable and necessary. I think that there are lot of players out there, who are passionate about the game and who would like to see some aspects of it improved and rebalanced. This thread is the best example of it

I agree. I have voiced my opinion that I would like to see more specialized unit functions...like the ability to lay and clear minefields, the ability to build earthen fortifications, dugouts with barbed wire, build and blow bridges, and so forth. And like yourself, it will probably be a future incarnation of Panzer Corps that would include these things. It sounds like the current code upon which Panzer Corps is based is somewhat limited.

[deducter]

It seems that players can be successful with either few infantry or a good number (20-25% in Zhivago's case) of infantry in their core. I don't see what the problem is. While I may be for more limitation on a player's core composition, that is something many players do not want.

If infantry were sufficiently buffed, we'd probably see a large number of complaints about how panzers are useless in a game called "Panzer Corps."

As for the AI's infantry being too weak, I could adjust the equipment file to just give them like +6 GD, but then it seems ridiculous that the Russian infantry are much tougher than the German equivalent.

[ivanov]

If infantry were sufficiently buffed, we'd probably see a large number of complaints about how panzers are useless in a game called "Panzer Corps."

Ah well - it's just a name If the game features the historical campaigns and battles, it should IMO resemble somewhat the historical reality and the unit proportions on the battlefield, where tanks are just one of many elements of the combined arms battlefield. Having them turned into a nearly universal super weapon ( I am exaggerating now on purpose ), makes the game monotoneus and predictable. I understand that the general public is mostly excited about the tanks, but an operational scale game like PC, should be balanced in a way that would encourage and promote the use of more diverse cores build by the players.

[Kerensky]

I understand your concern about multiplayer but considering the vast majority of people don't play that way means your example doesn't really hold much water for me . The concern should be with the SP mode. Infantry needs some serious help. As has been stated above it could be as simple as having different files for MP and SP.

I don't mean to dismiss the concerns of what may be the majority of our players, but it would not be a very good solution if fixing one aspect of the game breaks another, which would then require its own fixing and adjustment.

[soldier]

I think one of the major problems with troop performance that is factor in this discussion is that experience has little impact on troops and other low initiative units. At the moment theres almost no difference between how tough veterans or green recruits will hold up to a barrage and resist the follow up assault, so its always seemed that artillery suppression is too strong (something i think most can agree on). Experience should make more difference as to weather defending entrenched troops shoot back post barrage and to how effective that barrage should be.
This issue has been acknowleged by the developers and would clear up some of the trouble on this thread. The fact that experience effects some units classes differently (mainly infantry) is in fact a bug and fixing it would not break anything... only repair it.

[JackWulff]

If infantry were sufficiently buffed, we'd probably see a large number of complaints about how panzers are useless in a game called "Panzer Corps."

wait. Its illogical that tanks are King of the hills, woods and cities. There tanks cant operate well. Panzer General 1, yeah the game with the Panzer inside his name too, does a much better job to balance infantry, tanks and artillery. I am playing the game since 15 years and i am ever wondering why no other game can do it again. Its every time logical and understandable. I dont play pbem, thats too much time for a scenario. When i see the close combat points from tanks and infantry, i think there is a problem with the gamecode. Based on that strenghts, infantry have to do a lot better work in attacking and defeding in forrests, hills and cities.
In Panzer General the infantry was a must have, in Panzer Corps i denied it. So i have only 4 infantry units in the end of `43 and i took them only to defend important cities far behind the lines. Where is the scissor, stone, paper princip?

[brettz123]

I understand your concern about multiplayer but considering the vast majority of people don't play that way means your example doesn't really hold much water for me . The concern should be with the SP mode. Infantry needs some serious help. As has been stated above it could be as simple as having different files for MP and SP.

I don't mean to dismiss the concerns of what may be the majority of our players, but it would not be a very good solution if fixing one aspect of the game breaks another, which would then require its own fixing and adjustment.

Yes that is understandable BUT if you make the rules different for MP and SP than it wouldn't ruin one while fixing the other. But my question to you would be what do you think would fix the issue?

[deducter]

The equipment file already CAN be different for SP and MP. The developers do not have an interest in doing that right now, but hopefully with an expansion they will change their minds. For now I have already created a mod that addresses these issues somewhat, although infantry is nowhere near the godly unit some people seem to want.

[brettz123]

The equipment file already CAN be different for SP and MP. The developers do not have an interest in doing that right now, but hopefully with an expansion they will change their minds. For now I have already created a mod that addresses these issues somewhat, although infantry is nowhere near the godly unit some people seem to want.

I don't think anything I suggested would make infantry godly by any stretch of the imagination but it would make entrenched infantry able to last for at least a turn or two vs an all out assault.

[deducter]

One of your suggestion was to give 15 strength to infantry, which makes them ridiculously good. Just try playing on Manstein, when you watch Belgium infantry wipe out panzers unsupported by artillery in clear terrain. There was already a complaint about those infantry. There would be no reason to get any other unit except artillery and infantry.

If the game is too easy, try playing on a higher difficulty. I don't think you'll find Manstein to be a walk in the park. You'll get some of the effects you want, like needing to fire more artillery shots to completely suppress infantry. Generally 2-3 shots at least for a non-entrenched infantry, maybe more for one entrenched.

[brettz123]

One of your suggestion was to give 15 strength to infantry, which makes them ridiculously good. Just try playing on Manstein, when you watch Belgium infantry wipe out panzers unsupported by artillery in clear terrain. There was already a complaint about those infantry. There would be no reason to get any other unit except artillery and infantry.

If the game is too easy, try playing on a higher difficulty. I don't think you'll find Manstein to be a walk in the park. You'll get some of the effects you want, like needing to fire more artillery shots to completely suppress infantry. Generally 2-3 shots at least for a non-entrenched infantry, maybe more for one entrenched.

Yes I have played on Manstein and it is much harder. I am not trying to change the overall difficulty of the game just make it slightly harder. Manstein gives every unit +5 strength not just infantry. I personally don't enjoy Manstein as much as Field Marshall but I would like something inbetween to be honest. And I think infantry starting at a higher strength is potentially something that would be interesting. Though perhaps unbalanced for the earlier parts of the war. I would be much more interested in seeing my other suggestion about entrenchment implemented because it would make infantry in rough terrain much more survivable.

[ivanov]

I don't think that the offensive aspects of the infantry combat should be reworked but the defensive ones. I think that the cities, forests and entrenchements should give the infantry more protection against the enemy fire and affect more the strenght of the attacking tanks. So for example appart from affecting the initiative, the same type of close terrain ( most of all the cities, forests and mountains ) should offer higher penalty to the attacking tanks, than to the infantry. I don't know if that's the case already but if so, it should be reworked again, making the armoured assault against infantry sitting in the close terrain too costly. So it's not the case that the infantry units stats should be changed but the game's mechanics would need to be slightly modified.

[charonjr]

While infantry is already entrenching faster than other units maybe they could/should entrench even faster - in addition to a slight buff in their close defense values.

Can the entrenchment speeds be modified or is this hidden in the core files?

[robman]

I understand your concern about multiplayer but considering the vast majority of people don't play that way means your example doesn't really hold much water for me . The concern should be with the SP mode. Infantry needs some serious help. As has been stated above it could be as simple as having different files for MP and SP.

I don't mean to dismiss the concerns of what may be the majority of our players, but it would not be a very good solution if fixing one aspect of the game breaks another, which would then require its own fixing and adjustment.

I'd like to pose a totally non-rhetorical question, so that we can all better understand the problems involved: Let's assume that the ability of tanks to operate in woods/cities/swamps/rough terrain was reduced, and the ability of infantry to perform well in those settings was increased. (By "performance" I mean some combination of attack, defense, initiative, and/or movement values/modifiers.) What would be the negative implications for which other parts of the game? I'm sure there would be some, but I don't (yet) understand exactly what they would be.

[boredatwork]

While I very much enjoy PzC and the DLC I do agree that there is room for improvement. I'm not really too concerned now as playing the Germans is adequate but for some hypothetical future campaign from the Allied side the fragility of units in general is a concern. Currently PzC feels less like PG and more like AG - it's less about bold maneuver and instead about ponderous, cautious advance - which makes me worried that a potential "Allied Corps" using the same mechanics might feel more like a WW1 game instead.

IMO the problem isn't infantry units specifically but rather, as I commented upon in Beta, the massive increase in casualties (to both sides) compared to PG. Because all units are much more fragile (done in an attempt to prevent 15str elites from steamrollering everything in their path) it's exaggerated their relative strengths and weaknesses and to some extent nullified the original way PG simulated combined arms:

Essentially the PG units themselves represent "pure" units of infantry/armor/artillery/etc. Combined arms in PG is achieved by maintaining a variety of complementary units in proximity with each other so that they can *react in the player's following turn to the situation as it developed during the enemy's turn. Aside from Artillery/AD/Fighters there were no actual mechanics in place to simulate combined arms: There may be a friendly tank or AT unit next to an infantry or artillery but if the later is attacked by an enemy tank the former contribute no aid until their next turn. Likewise a tank in a city might have a friendly infantry unit on either side but they can do nothing if enemy infantry decide to focus on the tank.

In PG this wasn't so much of an issue (talking about balanced battles not the late campaign 15str elite units) because generally, unless it was completely isolated, the enemy couldn't focus enough attacks in a single turn to completely destroy a unit, allowing it to survive until the next turn when neighbouring friendly units, more suited to dealing with the threat, had a chance to intervene to save it.

In PzC on the otherhand because the casualties are so high it's **easily** possible for units caught in less than ideal circumstances, regardless of experience, to be vaporised in 2 shots. This nullifies the benefits of combined arms because the AI can easily, albeit often suicidally, send 2 units to entirely destroy 9-10 str units in a single turn which negates a player's ability to respond with more suitable units he has tactically maneuvered in close proximity. This lessens the ability to do the kind of daring manoeuvres that actually took place in many of the battles being simulated because a couple of T-34s getting behind your tanks can two shot anything in a single turn where as in PG they might do severe damage but generally your units would survive so you could respond the following turn.

I'm not really sure there is an easy solution in the current PzC because of the enormity of having to rebalance ~60+ scenarios and counting of DLC around any major changes. In the longer run however if a hypothetical "Allied Corps" is released as a stand alone product it might be worth experimenting with revamped mechanics to lower the overall casualties while simultaneously adding other means to degrade unit effectiveness to keep the scenario challenging.

IMO the approach to investigate is, as I suggested then, Fantasy General - instead of heavy casualties the units suffer cumulative permanent suppression which can only be removed by pausing for a turn to reorganise. Units could easily thus be reduced to 0% effectiveness to the detriment of accomplishing scenario objectives without necessarily being put in immediate danger of being totally killed off - thereby keeping the game challenging without negatively impacting the RPG element that is it's strength.




For the short term however I will repeat my regular request to give us the ability when buying replacement units to give us the option to reform destroyed units as 10 str, 0 experience units but with name, medals, combat history, and kills intact.

Thanks =P

[deducter]

I don't think that the offensive aspects of the infantry combat should be reworked but the defensive ones. I think that the cities, forests and entrenchements should give the infantry more protection against the enemy fire and affect more the strenght of the attacking tanks. So for example appart from affecting the initiative, the same type of close terrain ( most of all the cities, forests and mountains ) should offer higher penalty to the attacking tanks, than to the infantry. I don't know if that's the case already but if so, it should be reworked again, making the armoured assault against infantry sitting in the close terrain too costly. So it's not the case that the infantry units stats should be changed but the game's mechanics would need to be slightly modified.

One solution is just to lower the ROF of all artillery, so that each shot only suppresses 2-3 strength points. This will massively increase the difficulty of the game, as you can't effectively use artillery to defend yourself when attacked, making the AI much more potent. It would also be a bad idea to put your tanks into close terrain, even with artillery support, as artillery can't suppress enough infantry when they attack. You might also be forced to attack into unsuppressed entrenched infantry with your own infantry to speed things up.

This change is radical, but could work. I think it would bump up the difficulty very significantly, as it takes away one of the player's best tools.