DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

[deducter]

boredatwork's proposal isn't some revolutionary, unheard of idea. Starcraft is probably the best, most well-known example, and Brood War is so exquisitely balanced that it is THE standard by which all other computer strategy games are judged.

That said, it's not trivial to implement. A lot of thought has to go into it, and would require an expansion or even a sequel for it to work.

[MartyWard]

You say it is possible to win with weaker units if you are skilled enough? True enough - I've finished 1944 with more infantry than tanks in my core and 60% PzIVs so it is possible - but what if you aren't skilled enough? - you mentioned you couldn't win using PzIIIs in certain scenarios - why should you or a player of similar skill always be shoehorned into forever being *forced* to take a single option because that is the only one you can win with?

As the game stands nothing forces you to take any particular option. Everyoption is currently avaiable for the play to choose. Excellent players will play on higher levels with a mixof units. Others will play different level with some choosing to have an all Tiger II core and other with maybe a 90% air/artillery/para core. And with the chet codes you can really experiment with different core combinations and strategies pretty easily. I'm not sure anything really needs to be added.

The prestige based core would probably work good in MP as they tend to be good at generating balanced battles when both sides are starting from scratch. Steel Panthers and Talonsoft Campaigns both worked on that basis and were a lt of fun. I don't think it would work as well in a campaign you core is already built, the AI forces are pre-set, everyone will get to a scenario with a different amounts of prestige and with their core in different shapes, some needing major rebuilding and others not so much.

[El_Condoro]

everyone will get to a scenario with a different amounts of prestige

The prestige cap would prevent this, though - everyone would start the scenario (campaign or stand-alone) with exactly the same prestige, modified for difficulty level. That would be different to the current situation, which you describe, of varying amounts of prestige available.

[MartyWard]

everyone will get to a scenario with a different amounts of prestige

The prestige cap would prevent this, though - everyone would start the scenario (campaign or stand-alone) with exactly the same prestige, modified for difficulty level. That would be different to the current situation, which you describe, of varying amounts of prestige available.

What I'm saying though is you can already do that simply by using the cheat code to set the amount of prestige you start with at the beginning of each scenario and you can set the number of core slots the same way. You can already play it the that way if you want.

[El_Condoro]

I understand that, but the cheat codes are not part of the game in the sense of ease of accessibility and they detract from the success of a player because, well, they're cheats. There would be no standard by which to evaluate success or the value of strategies or the relative merit of a core composition because the use of cheats blurs the difficulty of the task. For example, if I say I defeated Bagration with 2 King Tigers and a 222 AC you would say I'm lying but I could do it using cheat codes. An extreme example, I know but to get the point across...

Anyway, just saying, I do understand your point, but I don't like using cheat codes as a solution.

[MartyWard]

I understand that, but the cheat codes are not part of the game in the sense of ease of accessibility and they detract from the success of a player because, well, they're cheats. There would be no standard by which to evaluate success or the value of strategies or the relative merit of a core composition because the use of cheats blurs the difficulty of the task. For example, if I say I defeated Bagration with 2 King Tigers and a 222 AC you would say I'm lying but I could do it using cheat codes. An extreme example, I know but to get the point across...

Anyway, just saying, I do understand your point, but I don't like using cheat codes as a solution.

You would only using the cheat code to set the scenario parameters (how many core units, the starting prestige) not to win easier or anything like that.

[El_Condoro]

It has the same problem though; set them to what? If there is a standard by which a scenario's difficulty is to be compared it would need to be specified by the designer, perhaps in a document or the briefing of the scenario (in a campaign) or the pzloc of a stand-alone scenario. That seems like a lot of mucking around when, if a prestige cap was included in the scenario parameters like the experience cap is there now, it would be much easier and not require a player to use the cheat codes. You're right - cheats can be used now and you can play the game however you like. One day there may be a ladder or similar and a standard will need to be applied. Even before that, this forum assumes the game is played without cheat codes and difficulty level (and a few options like FoW) is the only differentiation imposed by the game. Without an in-game standard it gets difficult to compare apples with apples.

[MartyWard]

It has the same problem though; set them to what? If there is a standard by which a scenario's difficulty is to be compared it would need to be specified by the designer, perhaps in a document or the briefing of the scenario (in a campaign) or the pzloc of a stand-alone scenario. That seems like a lot of mucking around when, if a prestige cap was included in the scenario parameters like the experience cap is there now, it would be much easier and not require a player to use the cheat codes. You're right - cheats can be used now and you can play the game however you like. One day there may be a ladder or similar and a standard will need to be applied. Even before that, this forum assumes the game is played without cheat codes and difficulty level (and a few options like FoW) is the only differentiation imposed by the game. Without an in-game standard it gets difficult to compare apples with apples.

That would have to be decided no matter what way you implemented the prestige cap. It's easy enough to experiment with though.

[El_Condoro]

That would have to be decided no matter what way you implemented the prestige cap. It's easy enough to experiment with though.

Definitely, but that should be done by the designer, not the player. In the first play-through the player would have no idea what the settings should be and would rely on the designer's settings. Very few players would go back and tinker with the settings to see which is best for them because they have prior knowledge of the scenario and that clouds everything anyway. The designer, on the other hand, will replay scenarios often to get the balance about right. The player should be free to just play the game and now we're back to the beginning: currently, they are sort of railroaded into taking the best equipment because of the slot restriction. A prestige cap, as part of the design of the scenario/campaign would allow players to just play the game and experiment with their core, rather than the game settings.

[AgentTBC]

I've never really understood the "just don't use it if you don't like it" objection to game balance. Would you have a problem setting the prestige cost of King Tigers to 100 and making them available from September of 1939? Should be fine since you could simply choose not to use them, right?

The idea that things are fine because you can simply choose not to use the better units is a rejection of the very idea of game balance or even game design. Units too cheap? Just don't buy them. Units too good? Just don't buy them. Units available too early? Don't buy 'em. AI doesn't know how to deal with rivers? Hey, you can choose not to fight near rivers. AI doesn't know how to deal with towns? Just don't fight near towns. AI can't deal with artillery? Don't buy artillery! And so on.

A game is either well designed and well balanced or it isn't! The player shouldn't have to purposefully gimp himself to achieve balance! That's like saying it's okay to add a new chess piece which can instantly teleport to any space on the board. I mean, you can just decide not to use the piece.

[Kerensky]

I've never really understood the "just don't use it if you don't like it" objection to game balance. Would you have a problem setting the prestige cost of King Tigers to 100 and making them available from September of 1939? Should be fine since you could simply choose not to use them, right?

The idea that things are fine because you can simply choose not to use the better units is a rejection of the very idea of game balance or even game design. Units too cheap? Just don't buy them. Units too good? Just don't buy them. Units available too early? Don't buy 'em. AI doesn't know how to deal with rivers? Hey, you can choose not to fight near rivers. AI doesn't know how to deal with towns? Just don't fight near towns. AI can't deal with artillery? Don't buy artillery! And so on.

A game is either well designed and well balanced or it isn't! The player shouldn't have to purposefully gimp himself to achieve balance! That's like saying it's okay to add a new chess piece which can instantly teleport to any space on the board. I mean, you can just decide not to use the piece.

Unfortunately game balance isn't quite so simple.
Players may not know and understand the game rules as indepth as veteran and elite players often take for granted (things like close terrain rules, weather, supply, even the difference between tanks and what all the stat numbers mean!). Or there are players who don't min/max their prestige and who regularly give elite replacements to their units during a scenario. Content is designed so that even these players, be they new players to the game or casual players, can jump right into and start playing and enjoying the content on the default difficulty settings.

Of course veteran and elite players will find this mode of game play to be too easy.
Personally I find Colonel harder than Manstein. Why? Colonel is so unchallenging to someone like me, I can't even finish campaigns on Colonel anymore because they end up being too easy and 'boring'.
But that's me, and I recognize that I am in the minority of players and that the majority of content isn't built for these advanced players.

What these advanced players can enjoy is expanded difficulty settings/mods and tweaks/house rules so that these players can play the game that suits their skill/fun.

[airbornemongo101]

What these advanced players can enjoy is expanded difficulty settings/mods and tweaks/house rules so that these players can play the game that suits their skill/fun.

+1

[MartyWard]

I've never really understood the "just don't use it if you don't like it" objection to game balance.

Why is it hard to understand? It's no different than choosing a difficulty level or supply rules. You can use them or not.

No one is suggesting that the cost of a Tiger II's cost100 prestige or that they be available in 39,except those who want to make a point of some sort. You don't think it's right to have a core made up of a bunch of tigers, then don't make your core that way. But don't take away the ability of someone who does wants a core full of tigers just because you don't want one. It's not like their core choice effects your gameplay.

[El_Condoro]

Sorry, but we've been over this point ad nauseum. The discussion is not about removing choice, but rather adding choice. Today few players will take 10 Pz IVs over 10 Tiger IIs if a scenario has 10 slots, for example, and they have ample prestige. It's kind of removing the choice, actually, if success is your goal. But if a player could take 10 King Tigers or 15 Pz IVs, that's a viable option. A prestige cap, rather than the slot cap we have now, allows more choice, not less.

[MartyWard]

That would have to be decided no matter what way you implemented the prestige cap. It's easy enough to experiment with though.

Definitely, but that should be done by the designer, not the player. In the first play-through the player would have no idea what the settings should be and would rely on the designer's settings. Very few players would go back and tinker with the settings to see which is best for them because they have prior knowledge of the scenario and that clouds everything anyway. The designer, on the other hand, will replay scenarios often to get the balance about right. The player should be free to just play the game and now we're back to the beginning: currently, they are sort of railroaded into taking the best equipment because of the slot restriction. A prestige cap, as part of the design of the scenario/campaign would allow players to just play the game and experiment with their core, rather than the game settings.

Why would they redesign the whole game for an option that can already be accomplished by the individual? In the DLc's it's basically up to the individual as to the make up their own core, just changing the number of core slots to accomodate more but weaker units would do it. You don'teven need to mess with prestige levels.
Also if there was a prestige cap, would it be set before or after you repair your losses from the previous battle? Doesn't a cap take away some of the strategy of being careful with your units and reducing losses so you have more prestige saved? It almost penalizes you for playing well.
I could see it as an optional choice but not as a required way to play.

[MartyWard]

Sorry, but we've been over this point ad nauseum. The discussion is not about removing choice, but rather adding choice. Today few players will take 10 Pz IVs over 10 Tiger IIs if a scenario has 10 slots, for example, and they have ample prestige. It's kind of removing the choice, actually, if success is your goal. But if a player could take 10 King Tigers or 15 Pz IVs, that's a viable option. A prestige cap, rather than the slot cap we have now, allows more choice, not less.

The 'choice' already exists. As I have pointed out numerous time the changes you propose can already be accomplished in the game as it sits. If every scenario had 100 slots and you started with a core and gave yourself 5,000 prestige wouldn't you face the same choices you ask for, 10 of these or 15 of those, 1 of these or 2 of those?
Other than making the game figure out the number of slots insted of the player I'm not sure what you are asking the designers to do.

[El_Condoro]

Part of the original premise of this discussion was that prestige is so plentiful that the only restriction on the player's core is the slots and, therefore, those slots are filled with the best equipment unless the player imposes some restrictions on themselves. Increasing the slots won't make any difference except there will be 15 top-of-the-line units instead of 10 because prestige is so plentiful. There needs to be some limit on the prestige a player starts a scenario with - much like there is in stand-alone and MP scenarios. The limit doesn't need to be extremely low and the difficulty level the player chooses would affect it so a higher level brings a more difficult challenge, as intended now.

It's difficult for the scenario/campaign designer to cater for the difficulty because of the huge variation in prestige available to players. An appropriate prestige cap would go a long way to helping this.

I envisage it as something that applies at the beginning of a scenario and so the player would be free to buff his core at the end of the previous scenario but the buffing would affect how much is available to him at the start of the next. It could be argued that it's a kind of penalty for playing well but it could also be argued that it is 'realistic' (I know that idea is very subjective) - High Command reallocating resources even though you have performed well. It would not be a huge penalty and the success of a player could be attributed more to how they play and use their resources than how much prestige they can 'mine' out of the maps. In any case, there is no indication from the developers that they have any intention of changing anything, so it's all just a sharing of opinions and I think I'm done.

[deducter]

There are really only three effective difficulty settings for the DLCs: Manstein, Sargent, and the rest. The game in theory is supposed to have 8 official ones for SP. There's also MP. For anyone who thinks themselves unbeatable, I'd like to test that theory.

I have absolutely no problem with Colonel being very easy. But Field Marshall for the DLCs is not even remotely close to hard.

The difficulty settings actually work very well with the Stock Campaign. There is a huge difference between Colonel and Field Marshall. Those USA missions are challenging. And Guderian or Manstein are both brutal or impossible for many maps. Also, there isn't as much of a problem with a "super core" in the stock campaign, there rarely is enough prestige to go around. You might get 2 or 3 4-5 star tanks for USA, but I remember when I played those missions on FM most of my units were 2 or 3 stars. Not the core full of super elites.

The problem really comes down to the DLCs.

[Kerensky]

Well the length of the complete Grand Campaign and the Vanilla makes them fairly hard to compare.
A better comparison would be to look at any one individual DLC compared to the Vanilla Campaign. Their total scenario length is about equal in this case.

We tried limiting prestige as a test in DLC 1943, but it was almost universally unwelcome as players struggled to complete the scenarios. Even with using cheats to artificially inflate prestige, player's were still unable to get decisive victories.
Fact of the matter is that lowering prestige accomplishes nothing. It's been factually proven that expensive units such as 0 star Tiger IIs actually are prestige saving machines in the long run compared to the initially cheaper but much more costly to maintain Elite multi-star Panzer IVs.

The DLC campaigns recognize this as fact, and are designed as such. IE with ample prestige that allows non-optimal COREs to exist and be successful.
This of course means that min/maxed COREs do even better and really thump the DLC campaigns on the basic difficulty settings.... but that's why we have...

What these advanced players can enjoy is expanded difficulty settings/mods and tweaks/house rules so that these players can play the game that suits their skill/fun.

+1

[El_Condoro]

I'm not sure what you are asking the designers to do.

That one I can answer, remembering it's an off-the-top-of-my-head spec.

1. An integer field is added to the scenario parameters form where the scenario/campaign designer enters a prestige cap. For example, 20,000. This would be similar to the experience cap field that is already present.
2. At the beginning of a scenario (perhaps when the game allocates elite units?) a check is made as to the value of the player's core. As I said in another post, the value of experience and heroes would need to be sorted out. e.g. 8,000.
3. The available prestige for the player is set by deducting the core's value from the cap. e.g. 20K - 8K = 12K.
4. The player adjusts his core to his heart's content within the available equipment and his remaining prestige. He is able to deploy a number of units up to but not greater than the value of the cap.

There would be an upper number of units - the current slots - to prevent the spamming of too many cheap units. The slot limit would be relatively high, though, compared to current slot limits.

That's how I envisage it without testing. An in-game assessment of the approach would probably modify it, though.

[Edit]:
a. Difficulty levels examples: Lowest - Cap x2; Colonel - Cap; FM - Cap x0.75; others - Cap x 0.50. These would really need to be tested.
b. Add a cheat code to allow players to modify the cap.