DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

[deducter]

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.

This doesn't address the issue that most of the difficulty levels have no difference.

Why isn't it possible to combine the best of both systems? The superior maps/dynamic gameplay and objectives of the GCs with the superior balance and strategic choices of the Stock Campaign? I'm not really annoyed that this is not the case with the GCs, they are an experiment after all, and I don't mind having to change things myself. I'm happy with the experiment, it hasn't really been tried ever, even in the original PG/PG2. I hope the designers are listening and aware of how well some things are working, and how some things are not working. But if they don't care, or think the current system is flawless, that's a problem.

Take the upcoming expansion for North Africa. Do you want the player to have 10k prestige and a core full of Tiger Tanks in Nov 1942? What about a sequel?

My patience isn't unlimited. If the game designers choose to drop the "strategy" element from their future games, I have no reason to pay for them.

[Kerensky]

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.

Considering how much people struggled with the concept of limited deployment (Kiev and Greece from the original game) I wonder if this really is a system that will work in Panzer Corps.

[El_Condoro]

Considering how much people struggled with the concept of limited deployment (Kiev and Greece from the original game) I wonder if this really is a system that will work in Panzer Corps.

True, but I wonder how much of that came because it was unexpected - they had never encountered it in the scenarios up to that point? Now that players generally understand that not all of a core can be deployed (the DLCs have this more from 44 on) that issue may become less important.

[Kerensky]

This doesn't address the issue that most of the difficulty levels have no difference.

I don't see how this is true. There is an astounding difference between Sergeant and Manstein, and all the other difficulty levels fill in the gap between these two gigantic extremes. Because there are so many difficulty levels, of course the difference between each one is a gradual increase.

Either way, I can only speak from a campaign design perspective. Changing the nature of the difficulties and adding CORE restricting features is not my area of expertise. I do my best work within the system and tools given. New and improved features are always welcome though of course.

[Linai]

This doesn't address the issue that most of the difficulty levels have no difference.

Why isn't it possible to combine the best of both systems? The superior maps/dynamic gameplay and objectives of the GCs with the superior balance and strategic choices of the Stock Campaign? I'm not really annoyed that this is not the case with the GCs, they are an experiment after all, and I don't mind having to change things myself. I'm happy with the experiment, it hasn't really been tried ever, even in the original PG/PG2. I hope the designers are listening and aware of how well some things are working, and how some things are not working. But if they don't care, or think the current system is flawless, that's a problem.

Take the upcoming expansion for North Africa. Do you want the player to have 10k prestige and a core full of Tiger Tanks in Nov 1942? What about a sequel?

My patience isn't unlimited. If the game designers choose to drop the "strategy" element from their future games, I have no reason to pay for them.

wow u just lost all credibility.........

[Zhivago]

This doesn't address the issue that most of the difficulty levels have no difference.

I don't see how this is true. There is an astounding difference between Sergeant and Manstein, and all the other difficulty levels fill in the gap between these two gigantic extremes. Because there are so many difficulty levels, of course the difference between each one is a gradual increase.

Either way, I can only speak from a campaign design perspective. Changing the nature of the difficulties and adding CORE restricting features is not my area of expertise. I do my best work within the system and tools given. New and improved features are always welcome though of course.

Kerensky, the game is great as it is. The game that some players are advocating on here, with a self-restricted core, should be called Panzer CORPSE--corpse because using a crappy core out of allegiance to some undefined historical standard or metrics will end in a mindlessly boring game leaving the player feeling like he wishes he was dead.

[deducter]

My wording is poor. Given the fact that success tends to build upon success, the difficulty level isn't consistent. In other words, if you start on Colonel in GC39 and decide to change to FM in GC42, there's no effective increase in difficulty.

It's odd how the designers admitted that there were certain problems with the stock campaign that they want to get around, like how every mission was a time rush, there was nothing beyond "take x objective by y turn," and how certain missions like Bagration and Batalon had IS-2/SU-100 spam, which was undesirable. But now suddenly, their product is perfect?

[Kerensky]

It's odd how the designers admitted that there were certain problems with the stock campaign that they want to get around, like how every mission was a time rush, there was nothing beyond "take x objective by y turn," and how certain missions like Bagration and Batalon had IS-2/SU-100 spam, which was undesirable. But now suddenly, their product is perfect?

I don't remember anyone saying that.
Except well... you.

superior balance and strategic choices of the Stock Campaign?

[El_Condoro]

It seems what "some players are advocating" is not understood: it is not about "restrictions" (self-imposed or systemic) but "choices". If a player wants to succeed he should be able to try with 10 Pz IVGs if he wants to or 5 Tiger IIs, for example. Slots mean the 5 KTs win almost every time. That's where choice is being removed. (And cheat codes are not a viable approach IMO)

[Zhivago]

It seems what "some players are advocating" is not understood: it is not about "restrictions" (self-imposed or systemic) but "choices". If a player wants to succeed he should be able to try with 10 Pz IVGs if he wants to or 5 Tiger IIs, for example. Slots mean the 5 KTs win almost every time. That's where choice is being removed. (And cheat codes are not a viable approach IMO)

Didn't I tell you to go get your shine-box?

[Kerensky]

It seems what "some players are advocating" is not understood: it is not about "restrictions" (self-imposed or systemic) but "choices". If a player wants to succeed he should be able to try with 10 Pz IVGs if he wants to or 5 Tiger IIs, for example. Slots mean the 5 KTs win almost every time. That's where choice is being removed. (And cheat codes are not a viable approach IMO)

I agree that choice is good. But.....

We are trying to compare a Late 1944 tank (Tiger II) against a tank that has existed in one form or another since 1940 (Panzer IV, late 1942 for the first 'high end' Panzer IVs).

It's not just that the Panzer IV is badly out of date compared to the new Tiger II, enemy units are also making the Panzer IV even more out of date as they improve. In 1942, you have to worry about the T34/43, which is a close match for the Panzer IV. In Late 1944, IS-2, and new high end SU anti-tank units completely thrash the Panzer IV. As they should, being more advanced units in a more advanced phase of the war.

And so, DLC Design tries to encourage Panzer IVs all the way up to DLC 45 (intentional use of old/non top of the line Soviet equipment such as SU-76 and old model T-34s). Even so, there's enough prestige to allow good use of new German heavy armor because the player does have to fight the occasional IS-2, ISU-122, and SU-100, something the old Panzer IV just can't do anymore.

So the question isn't just how to make the Panzer IV a viable choice compared to the King Tiger but how do you make the Panzer IV viable when enemy units such as the IS-2 begin to make their debut?



From my own personal experience, the answer is clear. I use my Panzer IVs and StuGs to engage the more abundant T-34s and Artillery and Infantry and save my Panthers and Tiger IIs to engage the occasional IS-1, IS-2, KV-85, or other Soviet heavy armor that happens to show up that my old Panzer IVs can't handle.

[Zhivago]

It seems what "some players are advocating" is not understood: it is not about "restrictions" (self-imposed or systemic) but "choices". If a player wants to succeed he should be able to try with 10 Pz IVGs if he wants to or 5 Tiger IIs, for example. Slots mean the 5 KTs win almost every time. That's where choice is being removed. (And cheat codes are not a viable approach IMO)

I agree that choice is good. But.....

We are trying to compare a Late 1944 tank (Tiger II) against a tank that has existed in one form or another since 1940 (Panzer IV, late 1942 for the first 'high end' Panzer IVs).

It's not just that the Panzer IV is badly out of date compared to the new Tiger II, enemy units are also making the Panzer IV even more out of date as they improve. In 1942, you have to worry about the T34/43, which is a close match for the Panzer IV. In Late 1944, IS-2, and new high end SU anti-tank units completely thrash the Panzer IV. As they should, being more advanced units in a more advanced phase of the war.

And so, DLC Design tries to encourage Panzer IVs all the way up to DLC 45 (intentional use of old/non top of the line Soviet equipment such as SU-76 and old model T-34s). Even so, there's enough prestige to allow good use of new German heavy armor because the player does have to fight the occasional IS-2, ISU-122, and SU-100, something the old Panzer IV just can't do anymore.

So the question isn't just how to make the Panzer IV a viable choice compared to the King Tiger but how do you make the Panzer IV viable when enemy units such as the IS-2 begin to make their debut?



From my own personal experience, the answer is clear. I use my Panzer IVs and StuGs to engage the more abundant T-34s and Artillery and Infantry and save my Panthers and Tiger IIs to engage the occasional IS-1, IS-2, KV-85, or other Soviet heavy armor that happens to show up that my old Panzer IVs can't handle.

I totally agree 100%!

[El_Condoro]

That's true and, of course, the example was extreme. A mixture of Pz IVs, Panthers, Tigers and a KT or two is more appropriate. It's always a difficult balancing act and Zhivago is right in saying the game is great. Why else would so many spend so much energy and time here?

[El_Condoro]

It seems what "some players are advocating" is not understood: it is not about "restrictions" (self-imposed or systemic) but "choices". If a player wants to succeed he should be able to try with 10 Pz IVGs if he wants to or 5 Tiger IIs, for example. Slots mean the 5 KTs win almost every time. That's where choice is being removed. (And cheat codes are not a viable approach IMO)

Didn't I tell you to go get your shine-box?

In case anyone is unsure of what Zhivago is saying to me: What does he mean?

[deducter]

It's odd how the designers admitted that there were certain problems with the stock campaign that they want to get around, like how every mission was a time rush, there was nothing beyond "take x objective by y turn," and how certain missions like Bagration and Batalon had IS-2/SU-100 spam, which was undesirable. But now suddenly, their product is perfect?

I don't remember anyone saying that.
Except well... you.

superior balance and strategic choices of the Stock Campaign?

It seems I am explaining myself poorly again.

What I'm trying to say is, there are certain things good about the stock campaign, certain things bad about the stock campaign, just as there are certain things good about the GCs, and certain things bad about the GCs. Both products are fun and enjoyable, but both products had some weaknesses. The stock campaign is balanced better in terms of prestige allotment, unit strengths/weaknesses unit composition. The GCs are balanced better in terms of map design, enemy unit composition, variety of special objectives, AI counterattacks, etc.

I do not mean to attack the developers, as they have clearly done an excellent job with most things in the game. Otherwise why would I be nitpicking on some issues that at least in SP I can solve myself. I want the game to appeal to BOTH Zhivago and myself.

That said, I'm concerned that game balance is not a priority anymore. Imagine in MP, and one player wins because he used a combined arms approach of infantry/tanks/artillery, and the opponent got nothing but Tiger IIs. The second guy comes online and complains that his Tiger IIs suck, since he should be able to win with only those. The developers agree, and the game is changed so that all Tiger IIs > combined arms. That's an extreme and obviously hypothetical (and unlikely) scenario.

[4kEY]

I have all Tiger II. I have a couple infantry, but they just sit at the back and drink beer. I don't even use airplanes anymore.

[Zhivago]

It seems what "some players are advocating" is not understood: it is not about "restrictions" (self-imposed or systemic) but "choices". If a player wants to succeed he should be able to try with 10 Pz IVGs if he wants to or 5 Tiger IIs, for example. Slots mean the 5 KTs win almost every time. That's where choice is being removed. (And cheat codes are not a viable approach IMO)

Didn't I tell you to go get your shine-box?

In case anyone is unsure of what Zhivago is saying to me: What does he mean?

Nice reference to Goodfellas (where I got the quote from)--you know I am only kidding around, right?

[Zhivago]

It's odd how the designers admitted that there were certain problems with the stock campaign that they want to get around, like how every mission was a time rush, there was nothing beyond "take x objective by y turn," and how certain missions like Bagration and Batalon had IS-2/SU-100 spam, which was undesirable. But now suddenly, their product is perfect?

I don't remember anyone saying that.
Except well... you.

superior balance and strategic choices of the Stock Campaign?

It seems I am explaining myself poorly again.

What I'm trying to say is, there are certain things good about the stock campaign, certain things bad about the stock campaign, just as there are certain things good about the GCs, and certain things bad about the GCs. Both products are fun and enjoyable, but both products had some weaknesses. The stock campaign is balanced better in terms of prestige allotment, unit strengths/weaknesses unit composition. The GCs are balanced better in terms of map design, enemy unit composition, variety of special objectives, AI counterattacks, etc.

I do not mean to attack the developers, as they have clearly done an excellent job with most things in the game. Otherwise why would I be nitpicking on some issues that at least in SP I can solve myself. I want the game to appeal to BOTH Zhivago and myself.

That said, I'm concerned that game balance is not a priority anymore. Imagine in MP, and one player wins because he used a combined arms approach of infantry/tanks/artillery, and the opponent got nothing but Tiger IIs. The second guy comes online and complains that his Tiger IIs suck, since he should be able to win with only those. The developers agree, and the game is changed so that all Tiger IIs > combined arms. That's an extreme and obviously hypothetical (and unlikely) scenario.

But my core is definitely more balanced than you make it out to be. I don't use all Tiger II's by any stretch. I enjoy using a combined arms approach--I just like using the units that I feel give me the best chance of 1.) winning the battle; and 2.) surviving the battle.

[El_Condoro]

Nice reference to Goodfellas (where I got the quote from)--you know I am only kidding around, right?

No. It sounded insulting to me. Let's put it down to cultural differences and be done with it.

[deducter]

And so, DLC Design tries to encourage Panzer IVs all the way up to DLC 45 (intentional use of old/non top of the line Soviet equipment such as SU-76 and old model T-34s). Even so, there's enough prestige to allow good use of new German heavy armor because the player does have to fight the occasional IS-2, ISU-122, and SU-100, something the old Panzer IV just can't do anymore.

...

So the question isn't just how to make the Panzer IV a viable choice compared to the King Tiger but how do you make the Panzer IV viable when enemy units such as the IS-2 begin to make their debut?

From my own personal experience, the answer is clear. I use my Panzer IVs and StuGs to engage the more abundant T-34s and Artillery and Infantry and save my Panthers and Tiger IIs to engage the occasional IS-1, IS-2, KV-85, or other Soviet heavy armor that happens to show up that my old Panzer IVs can't handle.

Right, I absolutely love this DLC Design. But I think the more correct word to use here is not "encourage," but instead you mean "DLC Design tries to make viable Panzer IVs..." So in other words, Panzer IV still have a use, just like you described, using them to engage enemy infantry or T-34s. It should be a massacre when a Panzer IV runs across a SU-100 or a IS-2, and I'd be very unhappy otherwise.

When you use the word "encourage," I think you mean you want the player to be rewarded for some gameplay reason, not just some historical roleplay reason. The gameplay reason could be any number of things: the Panzer IV saves prestige, or, as per boredatwork's proposal, in a hypothetical game I can deploy 2 Panzer IVs for 1 Tiger II. Currently I agree that Panzer IVs are viable, which is good, but I can't agree that their use is encouraged.

Another reason I'm complaining is probably because I've been spoiled by how well-balanced the multiplayer maps are. I play a ton of multiplayer, and it never ceases to amaze me the balance of most of the dedicated MP maps. On Hylan Valley for instance, I use a mixture of Sherman Fireflys/Churchills/Comets/Challengers/Achilles as the British and a mixture of King Tiger (rare)/Jagdpanther/Panther/Elefant/StuG IV/StuG IIIG/Panzer IIIN for tanks. What unit I get depends on the situation, the terrain, what I want to accomplish. There is a huge amount of choice involved, there is no one "best tank." Yes, admittedly some units are still not viable (like the Panzer IV), but that's a minor problem compared to SP, considering the choices available for MP.

Now imagine if you give both players on Hylan Valley 50000 prestige to start instead of 4900 for the British and 3900 for the Germans. Why would the German player buy any other tank than the Tiger II at that point?

Players like Zhivago are arguing that you should be able to customized the core however you want, with no constraints except core slot numbers and the historical unit introduction date. Do the developers agree? If they do, then according to this principle, the German player should be allowed to buy 13 Tiger IIs at the start of Hylan Valley if he wants. All MP maps need to be changed so that they give both players 99999 prestige to start.