DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

[eveready321]

I think Army Group Center had about 700,000 men at the start of Bagration.

[MartyWard]

I think Army Group Center had about 700,000 men at the start of Bagration.

Possibly, I 'm going from memory but it is safe to say that the overwhelming percentage of all armies in major engagements on the East Front were made up of infanty. It might be 'historical' to have 30 infantry units and 1-2 tanks units in a scenario but it sure wouldn't be as much fun.

[deducter]

The argument that because the game has unrealistic elements, all attempts at a more realistic approximation should just be thrown out the window is flawed. Again, why not Tiger Is in France?

[eveready321]

I'm not sure, but I think AGC only had four understrenght Panzer Divisions at the start - all their reserves had been drawn away to the South / and North.

[MartyWard]

The argument that because the game has unrealistic elements, all attempts at a more realistic approximation should just be thrown out the window is flawed. Again, why not Tiger Is in France?

Why not 50 infantry units and one tank unit per side?
The point is that using the most advanced equipment is no more ahistorical than using lesser equipment in far higher percentages than was found historically. Both are more fun than having infantry battle across the front, which would be the most historical of all. It's not like the AI is fielding historically correct forces either.

[MartyWard]

I'm not sure, but I think AGC only had four understrenght Panzer Divisions at the start - all their reserves had been drawn away to the South / and North.

If you fought Bagration 'historically' the game would end after your core was virtually wiped out.

[Zhivago]

By your logic Zhivago, since complete accuracy is impossible, why bother trying at all? Even history books aren't 100% accurate. German and Soviet sources contain plenty of mistakes and propaganda. All those history authors are lying anyway, since their sources are flawed, so they shouldn't even try writing any books. The only way you could get 100% accuracy is to build a time machine and go back to see for yourself what was going on.

This game is not historical in the sense that every detail is correct. But there are degrees of realism. For instance, what about giving the Germans Tiger tanks in France? Do you think that should be allowed? The game has the Tiger tank debuting in late 1942, which is a very close approximation to their historical introduction.

What about having the T-34 have better stats than a Tiger tank? Let's make the T-34 as good as a Maus. Because this game is not realistic, why shouldn't the game designers do that, for added challenge?

What we are really talking about is how good of an approximation of history the game should strive for. Some players, myself included, find that being able to afford all of the best equipment in 1943 and 1944 is ahistorical. It is also ahistorical if the German player could only get early panzers, say Panzer Is and Panzer IIs, for Kursk. Both these extremes are bad approximations. A better approximation would be to have the AFV portion of the core be composed of mainly Panzer III/Panzer IV/StuG, backed up by a few Tigers and Panthers. Is this 100% realistic? Of course not. But I would argue it is a better reflection of historical reality than the other two extremes.

The air unit system is completely unrealistic. Planes function more like helicopters. But is it an acceptable approximation? I think so, although it might be interesting in a sequel or a spinoff to have a "mission-based" air combat model for an operational/tactical hybrid game like this.

Even in the mod I'm working on, which aims to make things more realistic, I change values not based on historical data, but for gameplay reasons. Nevertheless, almost all changes are historically inspired. I have a reason for every change I make, although anyone is free to disagree and argue with me. I very much welcome such discussion.

I am often impressed by how well the game models the Eastern Front if you use a historically-inspired core. You do get the historical result (DVs before 1943, MVs + losses in 1943-1944), as it should be. I'd have a serious problem with the game if I could win in 1943 with Panzer IIs. I don't have a problem with the game being easy with all Tigers, as the Germans surely would have if they somehow massed 2700 Tiger tanks for Kursk. I think that's a good thing, even in a game with a "simple" model like this simulates potential outcomes very well.

As I have said in my previous posts, the very essence of Panzer Corps gives players the option the freedom of choice to proceed in whatever direction they think will lead to victory. If someone thinks they can play through each campaign with no infantry, or no tanks, or no planes, then good for them. The position you are advocating is one of anti-choice. You want to restrict yourself to some, as of yet undefined, claimed historical context. If you want to do that, then fine. But if you are going to assert on these forums that you are playing the game "the historical" way, then you should be prepared to provide the exact historical context by which you believe you are doing so. Like I said before, get out a history book on a particular battle, and then decide what units are going to be represented in the battle, what strength, etc., and then create your own mod. However, you are delusional if you think that you are playing with a historical core without any historical context or metrics to back it up. The game is based on a player's FICTIONAL CORE, made up of a selection of units the player thinks will best serve his strategy for playing the game.

Further, your comments about a T-34 being stronger than a Tiger I miss the point. You can take the statistics of a T-34 and the statistics of a Tiger I and place them within a context upon which to give them their specific strength, movement, etc., characteristics. You have made changes in your own mods to the offensive and defensive capabilities of various units to comport with your idea of "historical realism". I don't have a problem with these types of tweaks. But if you want to create a historical mod, you should be prepared to provide a strong factual context before you start trying to legitimize it with the term "historical" or "realistic."

[Zhivago]

The argument that because the game has unrealistic elements, all attempts at a more realistic approximation should just be thrown out the window is flawed. Again, why not Tiger Is in France?

Because we have a historical timeline context for when Tigers became available. The game gives us the context that Dunkirk occurred in June 1940. We know that the Tiger I did not become available until late 1942. As such, having Tigers in Dunkirk in 1940 would be out of historical context. Again, this argument has nothing to do with core composition.

[dks]

It's not like the AI is fielding historically correct forces either.

just a little humor. you made me laugh thinking about those last second SPAM hordes of Soviet T-34's etc. that show up just when your about to take that important city

[eveready321]

Yeah - but they won't bother you - if you don't bother them!

[deducter]

We're really talking about the CORE forces, not all aspect of the game. So the stats of units can be historically inspired, but the CORE composition is irrelevant. History does matter, but not for core forces. I can accept that argument.

Again, what I'm talking about is the degree of approximation. There's also a compromise for gameplay to consider. Giving the Russians (1) mostly 15 strength IS-2 in 1944 would be a less realistic approximation, and bad for gameplay (too hard). Giving the Russians (2) 50 infantry and 2 tanks in 1944 is a better approximation, but also bad for gameplay (too easy). The current AI force disposition is a compromise between (1) and (2). It's not as realistic as (2), and not as challenging as (1), but instead strikes a good compromise between them, and better for gameplay too. I like this design better than either an extreme of (1) or (2).

[Zhivago]

We're really talking about the CORE forces, not all aspect of the game. So the stats of units can be historically inspired, but the CORE composition is irrelevant. History does matter, but not for core forces. I can accept that argument.

Again, what I'm talking about is the degree of approximation. There's also a compromise for gameplay to consider. Giving the Russians (1) mostly 15 strength IS-2 in 1944 would be a less realistic approximation, and bad for gameplay (too hard). Giving the Russians (2) 50 infantry and 2 tanks in 1944 is a better approximation, but also bad for gameplay (too easy). The current AI force disposition is a compromise between (1) and (2). It's not as realistic as (2), and not as challenging as (1), but instead strikes a good compromise between them, and better for gameplay too. I like this design better than either an extreme of (1) or (2).

But gameplay is totally subjective. One player might think that using all tanks and no infantry makes the game incredibly fun. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I think it would be easier to discuss more historically accurate/realistic battles in Panzer Corps if each scenario had certain defined metrics...like is a hex one mile square, or one hundred yards square? Does one tank = one tank, or 5 or 10 tanks. Does one infantry unit equal a platoon? a brigade? a division? I still think my main issue is that if you are trying to make a scenario as historical as possible, then arguably, the player would have to use the units that were historically at the battle only. If you created a scenario where there were actually 10 Tiger I's in a historical battle, the player would not then be able to purchase three more to use during the battle because that would not be historically accurate. It goes against what I believe Panzer Corps to be--a game that allows the player to decide the composition of the core (historical or not) and attempt to change the outcome of history based on victories achieved.

[deducter]

The other thing we're talking about is "powergaming" vs "roleplaying." The former is about maximizing performance, the latter is some attempt to achieve a better approximation of history, even if it isn't completely realistic. Getting the most powerful units is unequivocally the correct answer from a powergaming standpoint in the GCs. Unequivocally. I consider myself a powergamer. In my videos for instance, I make full use of spoiler map knowledge, overstrength the most efficient units, etc. Not really appropriate from a roleplaying standpoint. What I dislike the most about the stock equipment file for the GCs is that there is often an unambiguous best unit in a family. I do not like that, as I think that limits strategy and choice for powergamers.

In the stock equipment file, for instance, the Tiger II is unambiguously better than a Panzer IVJ. The Tiger II is better in EVERY way (well, except movement), not only in combat stats, but it also prestige-saving. There is absolutely no powergaming reason to get a Panzer IVJ. Maybe add the occasional Panther for faster movement, or an Elefant or two, but that's it. I absolutely agree such a core composition is the correct strategy as a powergamer. The only reason to use an inferior unit is for "roleplay" or if you enjoy the challenge.

Sometimes the stock equipment file works well. The stats of the Bf 109F vs Bf 109E, for instance, is well-designed, and I didn't change that. The various artillery are also well-designed, there's no obvious answer as to which is best. But as the war progresses, the most efficient unit in certain unit classes become obvious. Sure, you can debate whether you should get 8 Tiger II and 6 Panthers, or 10 Tiger IIs and 4 Panthers, but that's it. The Panzer IV is unambiguously unacceptable from a strictly powergaming standpoint. It is only acceptable for those roleplayers.

As a roleplayer, the current system works fine. After all, no one is making players get Tiger IIs. They can use all Panzer IVs in 1944 if they want. But I was thinking, why should this be true? Why shouldn't both powergamers and roleplayers get the Panzer IV in 1943-1944?

The way I think about designing the game units is that I try to have a use for every unit, especially for powergaming. In other words, every unit should have strengths, every unit should have weaknesses. My Tiger tank is still invincible in direct battle, but it has serious weaknesses. It runs out of fuel and ammo quickly and is very expensive in terms of prestige. A Panzer IVG is much cheaper, has much better fuel/ammo, but is less powerful in direct combat. Against most Soviet units, a Panzer IVG in 1943 actually works pretty well. Against some of the heavier units like the KV-85, the Tiger I tank works better. So both units have their niche. You are still free to decide the core you want, even all Tigers in 1943 if you want, but that's not necessarily the best choice, as it is in the current game.

Bf 109 vs Fw 190 is another good example. In the stock file, the Fw 190 is superior to the Bf 109 in every way, including prestige. Using the Fw 190 will save you prestige, because its higher attack means that your unit will suffer less return fire. The primary prestige drain in the GCs is not upgrading units, but elite reinforcing/overstrengthing. There is absolutely no reason to get the Bf 109 in 1943 except for "roleplaying" purposes. My approach is to try to have the Bf 109 be useful for a powergamer too, as it was in the historical context, for the entire war 1939-1945.

The counterargument I see is that I'm just substituting one type of core (all heavy tanks) for another type of "historical" core (mixture of various tanks, emphasis on medium tanks). So all I'm peddling is my personal preference. This may be true, but I think it encourages a diversity of choice and strategy, not less. The Tiger is not unambiguously better than the Panzer IV, infantry is not "useless" in 1943/1944, etc. so the player has to think carefully about which unit to get and how to use it. I try to make every unit deserving of a slot in the player's core, for both powergamers and roleplayers.

[Kerensky]

Well in a big patch previously, we already adjusted many units to have increase effectiveness and usefulness. There is no possible compromise to make a 1942/1943 Panzer IV better in some way than a late 1944 Tiger II (and I can just imagine the complaining when people discover that a lowly Panzer IV is somehow BETTER than a King Tiger), within existing game structures. By 1944, the Panzer IV is simply too far out of date.

[deducter]

Well in a big patch previously, we already adjusted many units to have increase effectiveness and usefulness. There is no possible compromise to make a 1942/1943 Panzer IV better in some way than a late 1944 Tiger II (and I can just imagine the complaining when people discover that a lowly Panzer IV is somehow BETTER than a King Tiger), within existing game structures. By 1944, the Panzer IV is simply too far out of date.

The pure combat stats of course cannot be better for the Panzer IV. But it is possible to make a Panzer IV more prestige efficient than a King Tiger, for instance. This means there's more choice. Do you use the prestige-saving, more common Panzer IV, or the more powerful but rarer Tiger II?

MP matches see a wide variety of units used, which is good. But I have never purchased or seen anyone purchase a Panzer IV or a T-34 on any map except ICRS. And even for ICRS, many Soviet players go for KV-1C spam, and many German players go for only StuG IIIF/8.

Jagdpanthers were cheaper than Panzer IVs, before 1.04. That was changed. Should it be changed back, because Panzer IVs are obsolete?

Edit: I should clarify that Tiger IIs, Me 262s etc. are not prestige-saving in MP. They are only prestige-saving in SP. The MP balance for late war is very good.

[monkspider]

I tried to use a fairly historical core while beta-testing this campaign, with I believe 1 Tiger II, 2-3 Tiger 1s, 3-4 Panthers, and about 6 Panzer IVs and 2 KV1s. I also tried to maintain a fairly large number of infantry as well. I was able to always get at least a marginal victory, and I pulled out a few DVs as well. Getting a decisve victory was much more difficult than in previous campaigns I thought, but it was as it should be. I thought 1944 was the best campaign yet, even better than 1942. I highly recommend it, especially if you enjoy defensive battles.

[shawkhan]

If I were to propose a compromise between powergaming and historical I would suggest that a 'rarity' factor could be introduced. This would allow the first unit purchased at normal cost, but then multiply the cost of subsequent units by some factor increasing the cost of additional units. I do find it more than slightly amusing that units like the 'Elefant' are even featured in the game. I think they produced something like 90 of them in total. Don't even get me started on fantasy items like the Maus.

[boredatwork]

As I have said in my previous posts, the very essence of Panzer Corps gives players the option the freedom of choice to proceed in whatever direction they think will lead to victory. If someone thinks they can play through each campaign with no infantry, or no tanks, or no planes, then good for them. The position you are advocating is one of anti-choice.

But isn't what we already have merely the illusion of choice?

Given that prestige in the campaign game is frequently more than sufficient to afford the best, where, other than for role play/handicap, are the reasons of taking anything else but the "best" that would make it an actual "choice"? Hence I think the desire isn't to enforce "historical accurate" OOBs on players as you claim but rather eliminate the kind of boring no brainer decision making currently involved in upgrading.

The other thing we're talking about is "powergaming" vs "roleplaying."

...

As a roleplayer, the current system works fine. After all, no one is making players get Tiger IIs. They can use all Panzer IVs in 1944 if they want. But I was thinking, why should this be true? Why shouldn't both powergamers and roleplayers get the Panzer IV in 1943-1944?

...

I try to make every unit deserving of a slot in the player's core, for both powergamers and roleplayers.

The pure combat stats of course cannot be better for the Panzer IV. But it is possible to make a Panzer IV more prestige efficient than a King Tiger, for instance. This means there's more choice. Do you use the prestige-saving, more common Panzer IV, or the more powerful but rarer Tiger II?

IMO the real problem is, in the campaign context, prestige isn't the economic factor it's intended to be. (As I predicted in the original Beta) there are simply too many variables (repairs, core composition, player skill, luck) to reliably estimate how much prestige would need to be given to the player. Because the Devs have to err on the side of caution, and because the game mechanics conspire to make the rich richer, as in PG before it the PzC campaigns tend to snowball to the point where a player can afford to buy whatever he wants and subsequant scenarios have to be designed and balanced against the snowballed core or you wind up with the PG version of Bagration.

Once a player has more prestige than he can spend the value of units ceases to be their prestige cost: If I have 3 slots and ~1000 prestige then I have a CHOICE - I could buy 1 King Tiger OR 1 Panther and 1 StuG OR 2 PzIVHs OR 3 StuGs - prestige working fine. However if I have 3 slots and 30k prestige then spending it on anything but 3 King Tigers, even if you double or triple their price, is sub optimal.

Prestige has been replaced by core slots as the measure of value of a given unit in a campaign. Because all units "cost" one slot obviously the most powerful units are the best bargains, regardless of their prestige cost.


IMO the ideal solution (obviously only implementable by the developers) would be instead of restricting a core force to a # of units per scenario, instead restrict it to a unit value. (Ie allow a player to choose any of his core units up to a total value of 3,000 pts(?) for Poland, gradually expanding to 20,000 pts(?) for Bagration, subject to some reasonable total # of units cap to prevent stupidity like spaming PzIs in Berlin.)

The HUUUUGE advantage of this approach is it makes a wider array of units viable late in the game giving people more **real** choice in how to construct their cores while simultaneously simplifying the job of the scenario designer who no longer has to balance the wildly different possibility of 10 PzIVs OR 10 Tiger IIs in a single premade scenario and instead can assume that player cores will fall within a more predictable norm of power either 14 PzIVs or 7 Tiger IIs. Similarly it neatly adresses the viability of the smaller AA guns, AT guns, and PzJgs - I can take 1x88 or 3x20mm - a much more viable CHOICE than 1x88 or 1x20mm. Do I use 250 Halftracks for my motorised units or do I make do with 251s and use the points saved to deploy an extra Stuka? Do I ad +5 overstrength to 2 units or do I deploy 3x10str units? etc, etc.

(the obvious alternative implementation being the starcraft approach and having units take up variable numbers core slots relative to how powerful they are.)

[El_Condoro]

PG2 had this (1997 I think it came out) - it was called the prestige cap. A player could not have more than a certain amount of prestige with which to start a campaign scenario. PzC has an experience cap but not a prestige cap. Seems easy enough to implement (he says not knowing!)

[Zhivago]

But isn't what we already have merely the illusion of choice?

Given that prestige in the campaign game is frequently more than sufficient to afford the best, where, other than for role play/handicap, are the reasons of taking anything else but the "best" that would make it an actual "choice"? Hence I think the desire isn't to enforce "historical accurate" OOBs on players as you claim but rather eliminate the kind of boring no brainer decision making currently involved in upgrading.

You are making my point for me. The goal of the game, as I understand it to be, is to win decisively as possible, in as few turns as possible, with as few casualties as possible. For me, at least, this is accomplished by using the best equipment that I can afford and that suits the needs of the particular scenario I am playing. If someone wants to stockpile prestige points and make do with Panzer II's when Panzer III's and IV's are available out of some sense of being true to history, that is fine with me. My point is that if you are going to claim you are playing with a "historical core" you should be able to explain--with specific factual information and context--exactly what that means. Panzer Corps, just like Panzer General, is about choice. While choice may have its limitations based on what is equipment was historically available, or how many units you can place on a map each scenario, I think it is false to say that there is only an illusion of choice in the game.