Campaign balancing

[UlleK]

Hi folks.

I just want to address an issue I have with Panzer Corps. Maybe it is my german addiction to perfection, but I can not leave any unit on the battle field (and I assume that there are more guys like me who will never allow there favorite units to die). So in general the first missions of a campaign are quite hard to me (because I have to win without losing a unit), but later the missions get more and more boring. Best trained and equiped units rushing through enemy lines.

I wonder if it would be beneficial to implement some kind of ghost unit - after a unit is destroyed, this unit gets back to the unit pool with strength 0 and can be embattle again (for prestige, maybe only at start of a scenario, maybe even a slight experience penalty). This would flatten differences in unit experience between different play styles and allow campaign editors to balance their scenarios more on the edge.

What do you think?

[bebro]

FWIW, I had the same impression with the vanilla campaign - early scns felt difficult sometimes, while the later ones were sometimes far too easy IMO. There are certainly arguments for making early scns not a total pushover, but at some point I got the impression that the war vs. the Soviet Union was easier than the - supposedly - "easy" victories in 1939-40...which I personally thought was a bit strange.

However, there's lotsa DLCs now, and mods of course

Though in general I think the possibility of losing units should stay IMO.

[MickMannock]

Hi folks.

I just want to address an issue I have with Panzer Corps. Maybe it is my german addiction to perfection, but I can not leave any unit on the battle field (and I assume that there are more guys like me who will never allow there favorite units to die). So in general the first missions of a campaign are quite hard to me (because I have to win without losing a unit), but later the missions get more and more boring. Best trained and equiped units rushing through enemy lines.

I wonder if it would be beneficial to implement some kind of ghost unit - after a unit is destroyed, this unit gets back to the unit pool with strength 0 and can be embattle again (for prestige, maybe only at start of a scenario, maybe even a slight experience penalty). This would flatten differences in unit experience between different play styles and allow campaign editors to balance their scenarios more on the edge.

What do you think?

I'm not really on your side here. When a unit is destroyed in PzC, I see it was it has been run over and annihalated. You could argue that some members of the units escape and re-form the unit. I however see it as all the important NCOs, officers and so forth, the backbone, are killed/captured and that puts the units experience back to zero. And at that point, you might as well just buy a new unit, renaming it after the old one.

That is my take on it atleast.

[Schneides42]

I think what UlleK is seeking with the ghost unit is that it keeps its history (that is while the heroes and experience would be lost) the battle honours of the unit would remain. You could even add an entry that the unit was destroyed and reformed in the relevant scenario.

Cheers

Craig

[UlleK]

To be honest I want remaining experience.

I'm seeing it more from the game balance side - at the moment a small difference in battle outcome (1 vs. 0) has major impact on later game balancing.

But to argue on the 'historic' level: I think on this level the only reasonable solution would be to forbid experienced reinforcements (what would have a similar outcome compared to my suggestion) - why should there be such a hard cut between 90% and 100% destruction of the backbone?

Especially for german forces officers had to suffer high casualities ('Führung von vorne' within Blitzkrieg tactics) so that even minor loss of manpower led to significant impairment of the officers corps.

But of course I see the point that allowing loss of units give a certain thrill to the game - so I see my suggestion as optional for campaign designers.

And a question: I have no experience with the download content but assumed that the problem will be more significant because of the larger number of scenarios (as far as I know it is allowed to transfer units from year to year). Not correct?

[brettz123]

Hi folks.

I just want to address an issue I have with Panzer Corps. Maybe it is my german addiction to perfection, but I can not leave any unit on the battle field (and I assume that there are more guys like me who will never allow there favorite units to die). So in general the first missions of a campaign are quite hard to me (because I have to win without losing a unit), but later the missions get more and more boring. Best trained and equiped units rushing through enemy lines.

I wonder if it would be beneficial to implement some kind of ghost unit - after a unit is destroyed, this unit gets back to the unit pool with strength 0 and can be embattle again (for prestige, maybe only at start of a scenario, maybe even a slight experience penalty). This would flatten differences in unit experience between different play styles and allow campaign editors to balance their scenarios more on the edge.

What do you think?

This would be a great thing to do because

1. It would be historical
2. It would solve the perceived problem of people saving and loading a game to keep an experienced unit from getting destroyed.

I would suggest it return with a strength of 1 and have to be reinforced back to 10 but at a higher cost than you would normally have to do. So this way you have to really want to reinforce the unit and pay a price for it. It would be a nice touch and it would be nice to have it recorded that your unit was destroyed at such and such a date in such and such a place.

[Mooseman]

Hi folks.

I would suggest it return with a strength of 1 and have to be reinforced back to 10 but at a higher cost than you would normally have to do. So this way you have to really want to reinforce the unit and pay a price for it. It would be a nice touch and it would be nice to have it recorded that your unit was destroyed at such and such a date in such and such a place.

I think that's a great idea - I've been wanting some kind of record of when some of my favorite units fell in battle, and to be able to rebuild the unit from scratch and have that history of it in place would be ideal.

[MickMannock]

But to argue on the 'historic' level: I think on this level the only reasonable solution would be to forbid experienced reinforcements (what would have a similar outcome compared to my suggestion) - why should there be such a hard cut between 90% and 100% destruction of the backbone?

That is a valid point. Maybe you are right after all. Though if a unit is annihalated, it should cost a bit more prestige and loose 100xp or something like that. There should be some draw backs atleast.

[McRoos]

Good idea, but....

In practise, do you want to be a member of a division that previously has been destroyed?
What would that do with the mental part of the members of that reformed division?

So, forming a new division, imo is a better thing to do.

[Aloo]

But to argue on the 'historic' level: I think on this level the only reasonable solution would be to forbid experienced reinforcements (what would have a similar outcome compared to my suggestion) - why should there be such a hard cut between 90% and 100% destruction of the backbone?

That is a valid point. Maybe you are right after all. Though if a unit is annihalated, it should cost a bit more prestige and loose 100xp or something like that. There should be some draw backs atleast.

My point of view is there should be a big penalty for loosing a whole unit. If its down to 1str that means you have a lot of WIA in field hospitals, and some of the units backbone is still there (medical, higher officers ect.). If it goes to zero str that means its overrun, with field hospitals captured and all/most men dead or POW. For me the difference between a unit shot up but still intact and one destroyed is huge. You got careless and you have your consequences.

[brettz123]

Good idea, but....

In practise, do you want to be a member of a division that previously has been destroyed?
What would that do with the mental part of the members of that reformed division?

So, forming a new division, imo is a better thing to do.

It happened all the time in WWII. Germans reformed units (including divisions) that had been destroyed. I think you are over thinking this when you go into the mental impact on soldiers. And besides units are almost never completely destroyed. Unless you are encircled and captured. In real life even 30% casualties would be considered amazingly horrendous loses for an engagement.

[brettz123]

But to argue on the 'historic' level: I think on this level the only reasonable solution would be to forbid experienced reinforcements (what would have a similar outcome compared to my suggestion) - why should there be such a hard cut between 90% and 100% destruction of the backbone?

That is a valid point. Maybe you are right after all. Though if a unit is annihalated, it should cost a bit more prestige and loose 100xp or something like that. There should be some draw backs atleast.

My point of view is there should be a big penalty for loosing a whole unit. If its down to 1str that means you have a lot of WIA in field hospitals, and some of the units backbone is still there (medical, higher officers ect.). If it goes to zero str that means its overrun, with field hospitals captured and all/most men dead or POW. For me the difference between a unit shot up but still intact and one destroyed is huge. You got careless and you have your consequences.

Certainly you should pay a price. It could be something like a loss of 50% of your experience and then still cost you to reinforce that bad boy.

[UlleK]

If the price is to high there will be again big differences in game balancing.

It should be a valid option to sacrify a unit for certain tasks - but at the moment the loss of a (experienced core) unit is always the worst choice. In my vision there could happen defense maps leading to almost total annihilation of my core army - but in case of victory I could rebuild the core. For example a Stalingrad scenario, where I loose 90% of my core, but with last infantry holding the central points the encirclement is penetrated by allied forces. I think that would be great scenarios but at the moment they would either be quite simple or despite a win your core army is outnumbered in following maps.

I have no problem with dissenting opinions that is why I would love this as an option.

[El_Condoro]

Good idea, but....

In practise, do you want to be a member of a division that previously has been destroyed?
What would that do with the mental part of the members of that reformed division?

So, forming a new division, imo is a better thing to do.

It happened all the time in WWII. Germans reformed units (including divisions) that had been destroyed. I think you are over thinking this when you go into the mental impact on soldiers. And besides units are almost never completely destroyed. Unless you are encircled and captured. In real life even 30% casualties would be considered amazingly horrendous loses for an engagement.

I agree. Reading through the Normandy engagements the German divisions were 'wiped out' (in PzC terms - in reality, they retreated) and reappeared often. Even when they were 'completely' wiped out, like Panzer Lehr after Cobra, they would be reformed. Of course, that might mean using men from another division but a cadre was often still intact to build the division around. The same would go for a smaller scale unit.

For what it's worth, my image of what happens when a unit is 'destroyed' in PzC is this: it is no longer able to function as a combat unit. That would include KIAs, of course, but also WIA, MIA and simply cut off or unable to function due to low morale, no command communication or lack of equipment/ammo. Over time the remnants reform to continue as a unit. Even in cases where the unit is surrounded it is possible for some of the unit to escape - e.g. KG Peiper in the Ardennes.

In Maelstrom I have tried to imitate this by having full strength AI units in the front line and weaker AI elements of the same unit further back, which are triggered to appear when the main ones have been destroyed.

So, I would like a remnant of 'destroyed' units to continue on with their history (and leaders) intact. Something like a 1 str unit with 50% of its original XP (or even less).