Rudankort wrote:deducter
I've reread your posts in this topic, and you make a lot of valid statements, but I fail to understand what point you are trying to make, apart from making per-nation slots a feature in the editor.
Point 1, regarding the topic at hand: Some buffs/tweaking of the Italian units in the equipment file would be a quick and simple way to encourage the use of more of them. The best solution is probably just to reduce the cost for a lot of units (like the tanks especially).
Point 2 is a much broader, philosophical concept that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and that's probably why I'm failing to explain things. I'm trying to describe my philosophy on what "skill" is and how it applies to the difficulty of the game. It seems that there are meant to be two components to "skill" in this game: one is tactical, in other words, how you use the units you are given, and the other is strategic, in other words, what units you buy. This is a fundamental design philosophy. Do you want tactics to be the most important component of success (say, Dark Souls) or do you want equipment to be the most important component (say, Diablo III)? Or perhaps, to succeed on the higher difficulty levels, you need to be good at both?
The modeling of battlefield tactics between two armies with comparable equipment in this game is really, really good, and there's a lot of subtleties involved, and I'm not even close to being perfect at it. There's almost always room for improvement for a player in that area. However, once you get to a certain level of "equipment," battlefield tactics become irrelevant. The easiest way to beat the the single player game is just to get to the best equipment. You can make the game hard on Colonel if you give a player a terrible core, and you can make the game a breeze on FM if you give the player the best possible core. And a quality core is not hard to get. That would be fine if it were really hard to get the best equipment, or if you could only afford limited quantities of it, but in practice, it's easy for advanced players to afford only the best equipment on all difficulty levels (it takes a bit longer on Rommel setting, but it's still not hard).
In theory, prestige is supposed to regulate what equipment the player can get. In MP, this works out wonderfully. The player has to choose between a larger core of weaker, but cheaper, units, or a smaller core of super-strong units. In SP, getting the super strong units is always the best choice. Why is this? Because the top-end equipment, despite costing more initially, tends to save prestige in the long run. A Tiger I is unequivocally better than a StuG IIIG in SP, not only in combat stats but also cost, because the Tiger I rarely takes damage, and requires fewer reinforcements. Buy any tanks other than Tigers/Panthers in 1943 is a sub-optimal choice. For MP, this is not true, given the very limited prestige available. You can get a Tiger I or two StuG IIIGs. I personally prefer the StuG IIIGs, but some players might want the Tiger I, and that's an interesting choice there. So in MP, both tactical and strategic skill matters for every single game, whereas in SP (unless you play on Manstein), once you get enough equipment, there's no skill involved, tactical or strategic. And then you have players complaining that the game is too easy on FM, which it is if you have a very powerful core.
I want the game to be really, really easy on Colonel. The player should be allowed to roll over everything with Tigers on Colonel. But I also want the game to be challenging on FM, to require thought, where battlefield and strategic skill are both integral to success. This is currently not the case. That same player can still get all Tigers on FM, and can still roll everything everything with that core. The quality of the core trumps the difficulty levels when it comes to making this game "hard," to the point where the best way to make the game harder is either playing on Manstein or modifying the equipment file yourself. I think this game would have better replayability if the different difficulty settings are more linear. The gulf between Manstein and anything else is huge. The gulf between Colonel and FM is small.
On a side note:
If you make a certain unit the best in every way, then that eliminates choice. The best way to introduce choice is by having each unit be distinct. This is why I also feel editing the equipment file to make Italians desirable or very cheap, as per Kerensky's suggestion, is the best way to balance things in the short term. As an example, this is how I adjusted the Panzer IVG and the Tiger I in GC43 (there's also an experience upgrade penalty, so at most the player can have a 1-star Tiger I at the start of GC43, but he can have 4-star Panzer IVGs no problem):
Panzer IVG cost = 408 ammo = 8 fuel = 43 move = 5 INI = 9 SA = 8 HA = 16 GD = 14 AD = 12 CD = 2
Tiger I cost = 1353 ammo = 4 fuel = 15 move = 5 INI = 11 SA = 9 HA = 19 GD = 22 AD = 16 CD = 4
Is it obvious which tank is better? Sure, the Tiger I is better in combat, but it has very limited fuel and ammo (to simulate mechanic troubles and how this tank tended to stall out when attacking), and it's 4x as expensive as a Panzer IVG. Four overstrength points on a Panzer IVG is still cheaper than one overstrength point on a Tiger I. And the Panzer IVG has much more ammo/fuel, and works almost as well on soft targets, plus it's plenty effective against most Russian tanks, especially if you back the Panzer IVG with artillery. My changes wouldn't be possible without the ease of modding (the gamerules.pzdat and equipment.pzdat), so it's awesome to have more modding options.
If this is still confusing, and if you still want my opinion, I can elaborate on some some of these points further.
PS Is it possible to get replays for games, MP matches in particular?
...same goes for Rudankort...I think he tends towards nation core slots cause there are multiple and very good reasons ...so factual there is little new which could be added except from sleeping over it and then...decision time 
