Prestige and its mechanics

[KeldorKatarn]

Sorry I'm sure this has been asked before but since prestige is a term used in every 2nd thread here I don't really get any useful search results. Also sorry if this is in some FAQ out there, I haven't seen it, just point me there then

But now to the topic: my problem is that I don't fully understand how prestige works or rather what it is awarded for. Maybe that is because it is a bit different from Panzer General, maybe its just because I don't remember it well. So here's a few questions about it:

What do you get prestige for?
- per turn?
- for destroying units?
- for capturing flags?
- for capturing victory flags?
(ok the last two are obvious, but to be complete...)

What happens to the prestige that you have at the end of your scenario? Does it get carried over to the deployment of the next scenario or does each scenario start with aspecific amount of prestige?

How does MV/DV play into that?

And a general question... how do you usually spend your prestige during deployment?

[bebro]

You can get a certain number per turn if that is specified (incl. the exact number) in the scn editor for that scenario.

You get it for taking enemy-held (flagged) hexes, esp. objectives like key cities, ports, air bases (so for all flagged hexes).

Afaik not for destroying units as such, unless there's a scripted prestige action for this, which is another option that needs to be included in the scn by design and can have various forms.

There's no fixed number or percentage of prestige for DV/MV/Loss, this is specified in detail for every scn of a campaign or stand-alone.

[robman]

What do you get prestige for?
- per turn?
- for destroying units?
- for capturing flags?
- for capturing victory flags?
(ok the last two are obvious, but to be complete...)

Yes to the last two, no to the first two, as a general rule. The main difference between PG and PzC in this regard is that in PzC you don't normally get prestige for destroying enemy units.

What happens to the prestige that you have at the end of your scenario? Does it get carried over to the deployment of the next scenario or does each scenario start with aspecific amount of prestige?

It gets carried over to the next scenario.

How does MV/DV play into that?

You get a little extra for a DV, like 200 points, depending on the scenario.

And a general question... how do you usually spend your prestige during deployment?

(1) Buy any new units desired
(2) Experience reinforcements for all units to 10
(3) Overstrength air and artillery units to max possible
(4) Upgrade to new models of equipment if available and desirable

I think it's cheapest to upgrade after reinforcing, rather than the other way around.

[alex0809]

You get a little extra for a DV, like 200 points, depending on the scenario.

Sometimes (pretty often, actually) you also get LESS for a DV than a MV. Makes sense, because players surely need it less when they can achieve a DV! (Even though of course, that makes the description as "prestige" a bit absurd ) So, what I want to say, don't waste any units in a heroic assault for a last objective just because you need more prestige it might be a slippery slope

[deducter]

You get a little extra for a DV, like 200 points, depending on the scenario.

Sometimes (pretty often, actually) you also get LESS for a DV than a MV. Makes sense, because players surely need it less when they can achieve a DV! (Even though of course, that makes the description as "prestige" a bit absurd ) So, what I want to say, don't waste any units in a heroic assault for a last objective just because you need more prestige it might be a slippery slope

Be wary of Pyrrhic victories!

[KeldorKatarn]

thank you

[VPaulus]

There's a FAQ/Common Question thread, KeldorKatarn:
viewtopic.php?f=121&t=27283

[Jabod]

Sometimes (pretty often, actually) you also get LESS for a DV than a MV. Makes sense, because players surely need it less when they can achieve a DV!

How about also giving players prestige for each objective that they fail to capture? And deducting prestige for taking objectives? Makes sense, because players surely need it less when they can capture objectives!

No offense. I am just trying to point out the absurdity of how prestige is presently calculated. Players should be rewarded for playing well and not penalised for achieving victory in fewer turns than required.

At the moment the way prestige is calculated (with additional prestige added each turn) means that you have an incentive to delay winning for as long as possible. I.e. you should leave the last objective vacant until the last turn, in order to prevent the game from ending before time is up.

There can also be an incentive to delay winning the game so that you can capture the remaining flags that aren't on objective cities.

IMHO this is completely nuts. If you win more quickly than required you should get more not less prestige. Ideally, there should also be no penalty from capturing the key objectives before capturing secondary ones.

The problems could be solved by a combination of:

a) Provide the player with an adequate bonus for achieving a decisive victory (at least equivalent to the total prestige he would have been given on a per-turn basis by playing on). The best way to calculate this bonus would be based on the number of turns remaining.

b) Enable the game to continue until time is up, or until all flags have been captured. The turns allowed if you have won a decisive victory could still be less than for a marginal one, but within these limits you should be free to capture remaining flags.

[El_Condoro]

All of these approaches are currently available for scenario designers, and more. However, it is not necessarily 'absurd' to give extra prestige for an MV over a DV. For example, in a number of campaign scenarios the option to go to one scenario or another is associated with getting a DV. The choice is the incentive. It may, therefore, be assumed that a player who doesn't take that tempting choice has done so because he was unable to achieve it (had too few units left, or whatever) and would need some extra help to get back on track. i.e. a prestige boost. It's not always like that and sometimes prestige farming and gamey tactics can be employed but there can be a legitimate reason for extra prestige for a MV.

[Jabod]

Leave aside the MV v DV question for the moment and just consider this. An MV that takes you 20 turns (or whatever the limit is for that scenario) earns you more prestige than one that takes you 18 turns. A DV that takes you 10 turns earns you less than a DV that takes you 12 turns. The result? You are incentivised to take exactly as long as you have been allowed and no less, which means leaving the last objective hex vacant simply so that the game does not end.

This is quite obviously silly and annoying and it is not compensating players for anything - it is just an oversight in the prestige system, and a very easy one to fix.

Panzer Corps is one of the few strategy games I know that does not provide the option to play on, to maximise your score once victory has been achieved (should you so choose). That would work better. But it would be best if the player received prestige points for each turn that the game ends ahead of the turn limit, just as he would if he played those turns. That saves the player the trouble of having to artificially gerrymander the game length to maximise his prestige, and it is quite straightforward and logical.

Really this is quite a separate issue from the supposed need to compensate weaker players who can't manage decisive victories. Any bonuses of this nature should have nothing to do with game length per se.

I don't really see any need to compensate weaker players in this way. That is what difficulty settings are for. If the scenarios become progressively more difficult, then the succesful players are automatically being penalised for doing well in the preceding scenarios. Players who take longer to reach a particular point in the campaign tree will have accumulated more prestige and experience simply by virtue of having played more preceding scenarios, so they are already getting extra help.

And why should the campaigns of weaker players get back onto the same track as those of stronger players? The campaign tree allows for many different tracks. If you fail to score DVs you can still have a perfectly full and satisfying campaign - you simply won't be driving your panzers through California. If that is a problem for some players, they can always try again. That is how it should be - rewarding the player for doing well, and not for doing badly.

If one follows the logic according to which players should receive more prestige the worse they perform, then - as I wrote in my previous post - players should also be punished for taking objectives and rewarded for missing them. The system is inconsistent and clumsy, and there are better ways to go about it.

[El_Condoro]

As I said, all the things you have suggested can be done now - the game can give prestige (or even take it away) for any circumstances the designer wants. Make a scenario or a campaign and check it out yourself. In fact, most user made campaigns do as you say - give higher prestige for DVs than MVs. The DLCs and vanilla campaigns won't be changed now, so the best approach is to fix the issue in your own campaign and perhaps try out some of the many options that are available.

[alex0809]

I do get your point Jabba, but the thing is that the scenario creators always have to find a balance between challenging the player and rewarding the player. Sure, it would be rewarding if you got more prestige when you play better, but it would also mean that because you have more prestige, you can get better units, so you can play better, so you can get better units... on the other hand, if someone plays worse and only achieves a MV, he would get less prestige as you suggest but then in the following scenarios he would have worse units, so he would get less prestige, so he would have even worse units...
It's impossible to balance such a thing, but if it was like you suggested it would be even worse. I think the fact that you achieve a DV in the first point is rewarding enough especially in the normal campaign because there the reward is that you can take UK/US only if you achieve many DV. That is IMHO a way better reward than more prestige which you don't need anyway and destroys the challenge.

[Jabod]

Why does everyone keep treating this as an MV versus DV issue? The issue is that if you achieve EITHER type of victory in fewer turns, you get fewer points.

So a DV in 12 turns earns you less prestige than a DV in 14 turns. An MV in 15 turns earns you fewer points than a MV in 20 turns. So you are incentivised to sit the game out in order to make sure that you take exactly as long as you are allowed, and no less. You get prestige per turn, so the more turns you take - the better!

This has nothing to do with compensating weaker players or challenging the strong ones. It is simply injecting unnecessary irritation and gamey micromanagement for all players (or at least those who have figured out that the system rewards you for taking AS LONG AS POSSIBLE to achieve your objectives!)

And as it happens, I believe the argument about compensating weaker players and penalising strong ones, which I keep seeing repeated, is false. If there is a problem with players who achieve DVs getting too much prestige and finding the game too easy, then simply reduce the starting prestige for the scenarios that are opened up by winning DVs. It is really that simple. This ought to have nothing to do with how long it took to finish the preceding scenario.

As I pointed out in my previous post, weaker players who reach the same point in the tree more circuitously will have accumulated more experience, units and prestige along the way, because they will have played more scenarios to get to that point. Stronger players who get there sooner are already at a disadvantage.

I am not arguing for players who win DVs getting MORE prestige than players who win MVs. But they should at least get THE SAME amount of prestige. How can it be unbalancing the game to give a player who wins a DV the exact same pay-off as a player who wins an MV? That is the issue: the fact that if you win in fewer turns (whether or not you achieve a DV), you lose all the prestige from the turns that you never had a chance to play.

[El_Condoro]

Well, given that the DLCs and the vanilla campaign will not officially be changed, you have a few options.

1. Mod the data\campaign.pzdat file to give the prestige that you think is appropriate. This only goes part of the way for your issue.
2. As we are talking about a single player campaign situation, ie. one that no one else will see, play it without the gamey tactics and the way you see fit.
3. Create some of your own campaigns to play and share. What you want is all there, as I have pointed out a couple of times.

Other than that, the point is moot. The scenario and campaign designers will create them as they see fit - some will agree with you, some won't.

[alex0809]

Why does everyone keep treating this as an MV versus DV issue? The issue is that if you achieve EITHER type of victory in fewer turns, you get fewer points.

Where is this the case? I dont remember any GC/stock campgon scenario where this was the case but I didnt keep track of my prestige during a scen so much...

[El_Condoro]

It assumes there is a per turn prestige given.

[robman]

Leaving aside the DV vs. MV prestige issue, I would like to second the suggestion above that a scenario should not automatically end with the capture of the last victory hex. Like (I suspect) many other players, I like to keep going until either (a) I capture every town and airfield and destroy every enemy unit, or (b) the clock runs out. The possibility of "capturable" units (a great innovation IMHO) has only increased the lure of doing so. So I wait to "take" the final victory hex until the last turn, even though it strangely feels like cheating.

What if a dialog window popped up at the end of the turn when the last victory hex was captured, with something along these lines: "Congratulations on your victory, Commander. Do you wish to cease operations now, or continue to pursue the enemy?" If you choose the latter, you go to the last turn and live with the consequences (which in my experience are often quite costly).

[deducter]

The prestige issue is not as simple as it seems. For the stock campaign, I think prestige is balanced fairly well. For the most part, DVs reward plenty of prestige and gets you to the more interesting scenarios (USA ones).

The main issue with prestige comes from the 70+ scenarios of the GC 1939-1945. I personally do think that the GCs give out too much prestige. But it really depends on the player. Some players can save up 40k in time for 1943, while others are just barely scrapping by. There is a huge difference in terms of efficiency between players of different skill levels. The scenarios are tuned such that the average player should be able to preserve most of his core and win all DVs, although even then not everyone can accomplish that. Skilled players like myself might prefer to play with customized unit files or customized difficulties. I think the maps and scripting for the GCs are of excellent quality, and I always wanted to play 40-50 scenarios on the Ostfront. (Although given the scope of the Ostfront, even 50 scenarios cover but a tiny fraction of the battles that occurred, but I still love them.)

I understand the principle that players who struggled in the GCs and lost many core units should not be crushed, and thus if you check the campaign files, losses actually reward more prestige than MVs for the various GCs. I just wish there was some other mechanic, some other way of doing this besides giving the player more prestige, but there is none given the limitations of the current game engine. And from a historical standpoint, there is such a thing as Pyrrhic victories. Some orders from High Command can be unrealistically optimistic (for example, Wacht am Rhein).

You can always go into the campaign.pzdat file and adjust the prestige levels such that DVs give out much more prestige than MVs. It's very easy to mod this.

I think the great thing about PzC is that there is no unified standard of playing (outside of MP games). You can mod the game, you can change things such that you find it enjoyable. Maybe it's just me, despite having played this game a lot, I have not gotten close to being bored of it.

[Jabod]

I would like to second the suggestion above that a scenario should not automatically end with the capture of the last victory hex. Like (I suspect) many other players, I like to keep going until either (a) I capture every town and airfield and destroy every enemy unit, or (b) the clock runs out.

Gives the player more flexibility to play as he sees fit, cuts down on the gameyness, is consistent with other games, and doesn't involve rewriting scenarios. Can't be a bad idea.

Well, given that the DLCs and the vanilla campaign will not officially be changed, you have a few options.

Thanks for the suggestions. I will either do some editing or figure out some "house rules" of my own.

I think it is worth pointing out issues that I have with the game so that the game designers and scenario designers are aware of these issues. No doubt there will be more games in this series (not to mention user-made scenarios). And perhaps there is a simpler fix, like enabling players to play on after capturing the victory objectives, that doesn't require rewriting scenarios.

In the scenario editor (scenario parameters - victory conditions), what does "score" refer to? This isn't in the editor manual.

[Guest]

Well, given that the DLCs and the vanilla campaign will not officially be changed, you have a few options.

I'm starting to wonder if anything currently in Panzer Corps will be changed in the future