Series concept in service of variety

[deducter]

The beauty of this game is you can easily change everything. If you think you have to much prestige, just use the cheat code and remove as much as you think is required. If you think your core is to big, or to small, change it. If you don't want to field the most powerful units, don't buy them. It is probably the best game for all sorts of players, from raw beginners to experts.

I agree the game is beautifully flexible; but leaving on-the-fly rule making to the player doesn't coincide with human nature.

People was to win within set rules. If they are allowed to, mid-game, change rules or scenario and equipment parameters, the win is cheapened. Conversely a loss is more easily explained away and rationalized. So the ideal would be pre-set "rule packs" the player can choose to go through a game/campaign with. Thus the idea of "tweaking" the existing levels, or creating a different equipment/prestige scheme like deducter.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a community consensus on an appropriate level of challenge for difficulties higher than General? The higher difficulty levels, which except for Manstein don't really feel that different. Once again, I want the default difficulty of Colonel to be exactly what it is now, if not even easier. I don't want to change the balance for that.

I also don't think it's fair just to say "use the cheat codes to decide prestige or add core slots and let the player do whatever he wants for a challenge." To take this argument to its extreme, why then should the developers even bother testing the maps for balance? It's just as valid, according to your argument, that the developers can make maps with 0 prestige and let the player decide himself how much prestige to give himself using cheat codes. Doesn't this seem like it would create a very poor product? There's a very good reason why there are betas for the content, where the maps are properly tested.

On a side note it's rare to find a single player strategy game where it isn't "solved" very quickly, and usually the optimal builds/strategies are obvious. Strategy games also often suffer from a problem of the "snowball effect," where once you get to a critical point, you've already won the game, but still have to spend hours to finish. I lose interest in those games very quickly. But what if the rules were designed in such a way that it's not a handicap to buy "inferior units?" This is actually the case in PzC MP for the most part! I don't buy the StuG IIIG or the Panzer IIIN because to handicap myself, I buy them because I think they afford me the best chance for victory.

When you have a fixed series of rules, then you can discuss the strategy aspect of this wargame much more readily. Players can compare and contrast cores (different composition but roughly same power level), discuss approaches on how to succeed on specific maps, discuss advanced tactics, etc. If you have no fixed set of rules, then there's no standard to compare yourself to.

[MartyWard]

The beauty of this game is you can easily change everything. If you think you have to much prestige, just use the cheat code and remove as much as you think is required. If you think your core is to big, or to small, change it. If you don't want to field the most powerful units, don't buy them. It is probably the best game for all sorts of players, from raw beginners to experts.

I agree the game is beautifully flexible; but leaving on-the-fly rule making to the player doesn't coincide with human nature.

People was to win within set rules. If they are allowed to, mid-game, change rules or scenario and equipment parameters, the win is cheapened. Conversely a loss is more easily explained away and rationalized. So the ideal would be pre-set "rule packs" the player can choose to go through a game/campaign with. Thus the idea of "tweaking" the existing levels, or creating a different equipment/prestige scheme like deducter.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a community consensus on an appropriate level of challenge for difficulties higher than General? The higher difficulty levels, which except for Manstein don't really feel that different. Once again, I want the default difficulty of Colonel to be exactly what it is now, if not even easier. I don't want to change the balance for that.

I also don't think it's fair just to say "use the cheat codes to decide prestige or add core slots and let the player do whatever he wants for a challenge." To take this argument to its extreme, why then should the developers even bother testing the maps for balance? It's just as valid, according to your argument, that the developers can make maps with 0 prestige and let the player decide himself how much prestige to give himself using cheat codes. Doesn't this seem like it would create a very poor product? There's a very good reason why there are betas for the content, where the maps are properly tested.

On a side note it's rare to find a single player strategy game where it isn't "solved" very quickly, and usually the optimal builds/strategies are obvious. Strategy games also often suffer from a problem of the "snowball effect," where once you get to a critical point, you've already won the game, but still have to spend hours to finish. I lose interest in those games very quickly. But what if the rules were designed in such a way that it's not a handicap to buy "inferior units?" This is actually the case in PzC MP for the most part! I don't buy the StuG IIIG or the Panzer IIIN because to handicap myself, I buy them because I think they afford me the best chance for victory.

When you have a fixed series of rules, then you can discuss the strategy aspect of this wargame much more readily. Players can compare and contrast cores (different composition but roughly same power level), discuss approaches on how to succeed on specific maps, discuss advanced tactics, etc. If you have no fixed set of rules, then there's no standard to compare yourself to.

The beauty of this game is you can set the 'rules' any way you want or you can just play as it's designed. What could be better than that! i don't buy gmes to compare myself to anything, I buy them to have fun.

[Zhivago]

This is a non-issue, especially with the DLC games. New units appear at a glacial pace anyway given the compact time-frames of the scenarios, so by the time something better is available, it is nice to have the option to upgrade to something better. The Allies field new and stronger equipment all of the time. I'm playing DLC 40 (for like the 10th time) and the strength of the British Matildas vs the German Panzers still amazes me. This is even more keenly felt in the early AK scenarios. I want a unit comprised of elite fighting units who have scrapped through Europe and AK year after year honing their primordial instincts to kill. Why should I deprive them of the best equipment available? I would rather watch paint dry than to try and take down a Russian IS-2 with a pack of Panzer IIIN's. The fact of the matter is that after the initial Blitzkriegs of 1939 and 1940, the Germans got caught with their pants down in not having sufficiently capable armor to face the Russians and Brits. A huge part of the German war-effort was to quickly design and implement stronger weapons. All wars are a technology race. If the Panzer IIC was such a fantastic tank, why is it the Tiger and Panthers that are remembered? I play on Field Marshall, and it seems like the AI has consistently gotten better with each upgrade. I see no reason for a player to tie one hand behind their back playing with dumbed-down units. Leave things the way they are.

[orlinos]

The beauty of this game is you can set the 'rules' any way you want or you can just play as it's designed. What could be better than that! I don't buy games to compare myself to anything, I buy them to have fun.

I think we all play the game to have fun. Comparing oneself to something or someone can be a part of it. For example, I am quite proud of my playing tactics right now, because I’ve seen them improve over time. I remember the first time I played Spoils of War in vanilla ’39 – and how shocked I was then. As of lately, I even managed to destroy this big ugly KV with a well-placed cavalry unit and few Stuka runs.

(OK, quite many Stuka runs, because at one point I let KV reinforce itself fully, so I had to kill it twice. There go my superior tactics).

Being proud of improvement demands some ways of comparison. Please, do not mistake it for bragging. I can only speak for oneself, not for deducter but I know that I do not brag – there is nothing to brag about. Even finishing all DLC’s on -95% without reloading would in fact be nothing – it’s just a computer game after all.

Orlinos at the disco party:
Wanna see what my little Pak-36 can do to you, baby?

Can’t score chicks with that.

(Not mentioning the "improvements" in my tactics did nothing to me, when I tried playing multiplayer. I treated my first oponent like the idiot-savant the AI is - which he of course wasn't - and got my ass kicked. When playing the Poland scenario from vanilla campaign. As Germans. It was a massacre...)

[…] I'm playing DLC 40 (for like the 10th time) and the strength of the British Matildas vs the German Panzers still amazes me. This is even more keenly felt in the early AK scenarios. I want a unit comprised of elite fighting units who have scrapped through Europe and AK year after year honing their primordial instincts to kill. Why should I deprive them of the best equipment available? I would rather watch paint dry than to try and take down a Russian IS-2 with a pack of Panzer IIIN's. […] If the Panzer IIC was such a fantastic tank, why is it the Tiger and Panthers that are remembered? I play on Field Marshall, and it seems like the AI has consistently gotten better with each upgrade. I see no reason for a player to tie one hand behind their back playing with dumbed-down units. Leave things the way they are.

I think I am seeing the same discussion that I’ve already read some time ago unfold itself yet again. If you watch deducter’s videos, Panzer IICs or 38(t)s are not used to take full force of AI counterattacks!

I know that’s not the way I use them either. They are fast, so they can cover flanks fast. They are cheap, so I may sometimes risk leaving them somewhere with no artillery support to protect my back or even make an ambush (rarely, I’m bad with that). If they take a lot of punishment, elite replacements and overstrength are cheap. The same with Pak-36 – this little bugger was capable of dealing huge damage to attacking English tanks – which I afterwards finished off with Stukas and Panzer III’s. And I could to it for little prestige.

Using “inferior” equipment is not done for bragging rights or self-flagellation. It’s for efficiency when playing with limited prestige settings. When I need a strong beast in 40-42 (haven’t yet been to 43-45 DLC) – sure, I use the biggest tanks I have. But I do not need to have them everywhere.

[MartyWard]

I think we all play the game to have fun. Comparing oneself to something or someone can be a part of it. For example, I am quite proud of my playing tactics right now, because I’ve seen them improve over time. I remember the first time I played Spoils of War in vanilla ’39 – and how shocked I was then. As of lately, I even managed to destroy this big ugly KV with a well-placed cavalry unit and few Stuka runs.

I'm not saying that playing for reasons other than fun, or having fun playing others ways is not other peoples cup of tea. The way the game is set now you can play it any way you like and that is rare to find. You can play it as historical or as non-historical as you like.

[orlinos]

I think we all play the game to have fun. Comparing oneself to something or someone can be a part of it. For example, I am quite proud of my playing tactics right now, because I’ve seen them improve over time. I remember the first time I played Spoils of War in vanilla ’39 – and how shocked I was then. As of lately, I even managed to destroy this big ugly KV with a well-placed cavalry unit and few Stuka runs.

I'm not saying that playing for reasons other than fun, or having fun playing others ways is not other peoples cup of tea. The way the game is set now you can play it any way you like and that is rare to find. You can play it as historical or as non-historical as you like.

This particular sub-discussion was started by deducter’s proposition of certain changes to official difficulty levels. Your argument is “let’s just leave the game as it is, because one can change it anyway for himself”. It’s an argument – I am not denying you that – but not a very good one.

There already have been many modifications done by the developers in the patches, that could have been done by modders themselves – to balance the unit stats. These changes were made after hearing the opinions of players – filtrated by how the designers feel their game should look like, by business considerations (too many deep changes too often can scare of newbies and create problems with existing content etc.) and probably other reasons.

Mind you, in this particular discussion I do not stand on any side. For all I care the developers might in the next patch make even Ultimate Difficulty “baby like” or make Sergeant totally unplayable to even the toughest players. I would be able to mod it out in second. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that vanilla game MIGHT get some changes to difficulties done, if there are enough arguments for it and developers feel it the right thing to do.

For example – making Colonel or even General prestige settings more forgiving might make new players more inclined to keep playing. At this moment if someone is not good enough to survive, he can always switch to an easier difficulty, but that also means switching to a lesser AI level. It MIGHT be better to let such people play against full AI, but with enough prestige to keep going even after the most bloody fights. Maybe, of course.

On the other hand – if there are enough advanced players interested in making advanced difficulties, it might be OK to set a new standard for them – if enough people agree to it.

Now, I can readily also give arguments against these ideas. For example, giving more prestige on Colonel might mean that people who are already struggling (but still surviving) will feel treated like babies. “So you think we are idiots and have to be given extra care?!”.

Making advanced difficulties even more difficult might also be punishing to non-advanced players. Right now I am playing the AK on Rommel and I was doing OK the first three scenarios (than got heavily kicked in the fourth and I see another nasty fight ahead). I felt – wow, I am so great, playing The Advanced Difficulty for Big Macho Men! If Rommel gets changed to -75%, I will only be able to play my own “Rommel for dummies” -50% version. I won’t be feeling so macho anymore. And so would any non-advanced player, who would find hardcore difficulties even more inaccessible than before.

Other players – including you - might put here their own arguments pro or against. I just do not think that an argument of “do not propose any changes to vanilla game if you can mod them yourself” is the best and most constructive one.

[MartyWard]

This particular sub-discussion was started by deducter’s proposition of certain changes to official difficulty levels. Your argument is “let’s just leave the game as it is, because one can change it anyway for himself”. It’s an argument – I am not denying you that – but not a very good one.

There already have been many modifications done by the developers in the patches, that could have been done by modders themselves – to balance the unit stats. These changes were made after hearing the opinions of players – filtrated by how the designers feel their game should look like, by business considerations (too many deep changes too often can scare of newbies and create problems with existing content etc.) and probably other reasons.

I disagree that is is not a good argument.

No matter how the designers change things, it will not please everyone, and they shouldn't try to. The current set up lets you easily change the basics to your liking and there are plenty of mods to try different unit values. If the designers decided to change things and make the game give 1/2 the current prestige, for example, you still would not be forced to play that way if YOU wanted to play differently. So it doesn't really matter if the make any changes to the base game that make it harder or easier. It is so easy to adjust that people will still change things to suit their wants. The designers should be working on bug squashing (if there are still any) or AI improvement or new features or additional games for the series not re-doing what already works.

[orlinos]

This particular sub-discussion was started by deducter’s proposition of certain changes to official difficulty levels. Your argument is “let’s just leave the game as it is, because one can change it anyway for himself”. It’s an argument – I am not denying you that – but not a very good one.

There already have been many modifications done by the developers in the patches, that could have been done by modders themselves – to balance the unit stats. These changes were made after hearing the opinions of players – filtrated by how the designers feel their game should look like, by business considerations (too many deep changes too often can scare of newbies and create problems with existing content etc.) and probably other reasons.

I disagree that it is not a good argument.

No matter how the designers change things, it will not please everyone, and they shouldn't try to. The current set up lets you easily change the basics to your liking and there are plenty of mods to try different unit values. If the designers decided to change things and make the game give 1/2 the current prestige, for example, you still would not be forced to play that way if YOU wanted to play differently. So it doesn't really matter if the make any changes to the base game that make it harder or easier. It is so easy to adjust that people will still change things to suit their wants. The designers should be working on bug squashing (if there are still any) or AI improvement or new features or additional games for the series not re-doing what already works.

It is an argument that closes a discussion at the very beginning and is very negative. The designers will be working on what they believe is important themselves – no way any of us can change that. (And it’s good). It’s not as if Rudankort stops doing what he is doing right now or the whole company changes its business model and develops games differently just because deducter is discussing his ideas of changes in difficulty in a forum mod. There is no such danger. But with the argument “don’t propose changing anything in vanilla what you can mod yourself” there can be no rational discussion.

That current Grand Campaign scenarios have sufficient time limits stems from the fact that many people complained of how fast you had to be in vanilla campaign. No one said “hey, you can open the scenario editor and modify the limits yourselves, let the developers do more important things”. So such discussions can sometimes have beneficial results – the GC scenarios play very differently because they were made with players remark in mind. Still, developers chose which remarks they considered the most important.

Personally, I believe that there might not be enough of extremely advanced players to justify such big changes to the main game – but an idea of “difficulty packs” made by modders seems pretty plausible. (Grand Campaign Revisions e-file is already such a pack, in a way).

[MartyWard]

[quote="orlinos]It is an argument that closes a discussion at the very beginning and is very negative. The designers will be working on what they believe is important themselves – no way any of us can change that. (And it’s good). It’s not as if Rudankort stops doing what he is doing right now or the whole company changes its business model and develops games differently just because deducter is discussing his ideas of changes in difficulty in a forum mod. There is no such danger. But with the argument “don’t propose changing anything in vanilla what you can mod yourself” there can be no rational discussion.

That current Grand Campaign scenarios have sufficient time limits stems from the fact that many people complained of how fast you had to be in vanilla campaign. No one said “hey, you can open the scenario editor and modify the limits yourselves, let the developers do more important things”. So such discussions can sometimes have beneficial results – the GC scenarios play very differently because they were made with players remark in mind. Still, developers chose which remarks they considered the most important.

Personally, I believe that there might not be enough of extremely advanced players to justify such big changes to the main game – but an idea of “difficulty packs” made by modders seems pretty plausible. (Grand Campaign Revisions e-file is already such a pack, in a way).[/quote]

I think you misunderstand me. No matter how the basic game is designed, it will not please everybody. There will be those who use the tools provided to change the game to what they like, just like they do now. That is why I think this is one of the best games out there. You don't need to be a computer expert to make basic changes to the game to customize it when you are playing against the AI.
I have played a number of mods and liked them. I also like the game as it sits. I change a few things now and then to see what happens. I would do the same thing if one of the mods was the standard game and the standard game was a mod.

[orlinos]

I think you misunderstand me. No matter how the basic game is designed, it will not please everybody.

I fully agree with you on this matter and so does probably everyone else in this topic. But it is obvious. If anyone starts a discussion on any gameplay changes it’s always just an idea that will never please everyone.

There will be those who use the tools provided to change the game to what they like, just like they do now. That is why I think this is one of the best games out there. You don't need to be a computer expert to make basic changes to the game to customize it when you are playing against the AI.
I have played a number of mods and liked them. I also like the game as it sits. I change a few things now and then to see what happens. I would do the same thing if one of the mods was the standard game and the standard game was a mod.

I can also agree with that. I read this topic from the very beginning to try what we are really arguing about.

It started with Kamerer and deducter discussing their ideas on modifications of difficulty levels. Good ideas, bad ideas, doesn’t really matter. Than you wrote:

IAnd, with these multiple levels available, people can play to their level of choice. If they want the challenge of not being available to just spend away, they can choose so more easily.

The beauty of this game is you can easily change everything. If you think you have to much prestige, just use the cheat code and remove as much as you think is required. If you think your core is to big, or to small, change it. If you don't want to field the most powerful units, don't buy them. It is probably the best game for all sorts of players, from raw beginners to experts.

Kamerer explained why having set rules (in vanilla game or as a mod pack) is better than just changing them on the fly.

Than you wrote that you prefer to play the game for fun. I have to admit that I do not understand that argument – again it’s obvious. Everyone here has fun with the game. So I don’t quite understand how that comment corresponds with what Kamerer and deducter discussed.

Than deducter explained why he prefers to have a fixed series of rules:

[…] When you have a fixed series of rules, then you can discuss the strategy aspect of this wargame much more readily. Players can compare and contrast cores (different composition but roughly same power level), discuss approaches on how to succeed on specific maps, discuss advanced tactics, etc. If you have no fixed set of rules, then there's no standard to compare yourself to.

Your response was:

[...]The beauty of this game is you can set the 'rules' any way you want or you can just play as it's designed. What could be better than that! i don't buy gmes to compare myself to anything, I buy them to have fun.

Again, I don’t quite understand it. Everyone knows you can mod the game (deducter sure does and have often said so). Everyone plays for fun – both people who like comparisons and those who do not. I think it’s all a straw man-type discussion.

Than Zhivago came with his arguments which, I believe, are a repeat of what he wrote in the long discussion on the idea of having fixed amounts of prestige for the scenario. An accusation of “wanting to tie player’s hands against his back”. Again, I do not know how it really relates to the discussion of difficulty levels.

Then I bashed in because I found the difficulties discussion interesting and I do not want it again to spiral into something like that previous discussion. Which was basically “I don’t care what arguments pro fixed amounts of prestige might be, just don’t change the game in any way, because it’s fine as it is”. Repeated again and again, ad nauseam.

And I also dislike the argument about “what developers should do”. I respect and I am interested in your opinion on what YOU believe the game should be like. I makes no sense to guess what developers should be doing – they’ve got minds and problems of their own.

Even if deducter invites all other hardcore-advanced players to this topic and they all agree that the difficulties must be tweaked, it still won’t change the opinion of developers, who have to cater to all players – most of who are of casual level and do not even show up on the forums but who have paid hard cash for the game.

[deducter]

This is a non-issue, especially with the DLC games. New units appear at a glacial pace anyway given the compact time-frames of the scenarios, so by the time something better is available, it is nice to have the option to upgrade to something better. The Allies field new and stronger equipment all of the time. I'm playing DLC 40 (for like the 10th time) and the strength of the British Matildas vs the German Panzers still amazes me. This is even more keenly felt in the early AK scenarios. I want a unit comprised of elite fighting units who have scrapped through Europe and AK year after year honing their primordial instincts to kill. Why should I deprive them of the best equipment available? I would rather watch paint dry than to try and take down a Russian IS-2 with a pack of Panzer IIIN's. The fact of the matter is that after the initial Blitzkriegs of 1939 and 1940, the Germans got caught with their pants down in not having sufficiently capable armor to face the Russians and Brits. A huge part of the German war-effort was to quickly design and implement stronger weapons. All wars are a technology race. If the Panzer IIC was such a fantastic tank, why is it the Tiger and Panthers that are remembered? I play on Field Marshall, and it seems like the AI has consistently gotten better with each upgrade. I see no reason for a player to tie one hand behind their back playing with dumbed-down units. Leave things the way they are.

I don't want to play with one hand tied behind my back either! If I wanted to do that, I could always send my tanks into close terrain without artillery support, or attack entrenched infantry without softening it up with artillery, or send out my Ju 87s unescorted, or intentionally attack a IS-2 with a Panzer IIIN.

I do not want the Panzer IIIN to stand up to a IS-2 or a Panzer IIC to stand up to a T-34. In this game, even a horde of Panzer IIIN couldn't do much to a IS-2, unless the IS-2 is completely isolated with 0 supporting units anywhere near it. I most certainly am not advocating sending a Panzer IIIN to attack a IS-2, sending a Tiger or a JagdPanther or a Tiger II is a much better choice. Or lure the IS-2 into close terrain and kill it with infantry. Or attack it with a Ju 87G or with an elite strategic bomber to exhaust it of ammo. The Panzer IIIN is just as effective at killing an infantry or other soft targets as a Tiger. That's the purpose of the Panzer IIIN.

Historically, isn't it interesting how the Germans won their greatest victory with minimal casualties (about 150,000 German losses vs 2,000,000 casualties/surrendered for the Allies) in 1940 against France (which was considered to have the best army in the world 1940, even by the Germans) and Britain, when the Germans had inferior equipment? And isn't interesting that the Germans were losing badly in 1944, even though by then they were fielding Panthers, Tigers, jet fighters?

For every IS-2 in the DLCs there are about 10 junk units like the T-34 and T-60 and SU-76. For every Matilda II/Somua/CharB1 in GC40 there's about 2-3 Renaults/Hotchkiss/Cruiser/various other junk tanks.

Originally the Germans wanted to shut down production of the Panzer IV in 1943-1944. Guderian, as Inspector of the Armored Troops, convinced them to keep producing Panzer IVs and in fact increase production numbers. Did the father of German armored warfare decide to handicap Germany and intentionally lose the war?

Playing on FM is different way of handicapping yourself. You have -50% experience relative to General. So why are handicaps using difficulty levels acceptable? I'm not trying to be snarky here, I really want to know, why are difficulty levels a good way of self-handicapping but buying "inferior units" not?

Now that I think about it, I do agree with you, there's no need to change any of the existing settings. I respect anyone who likes things the way they are. Rather, this suggestion is really good:

Personally, I believe that there might not be enough of extremely advanced players to justify such big changes to the main game – but an idea of “difficulty packs” made by modders seems pretty plausible. (Grand Campaign Revisions e-file is already such a pack, in a way).

My only caveat is that "difficulty packs" could use some attention from the developers too. Adding new rulesets could be a very good idea to extend the longevity of the game. And being able to discussion these things openly is great, because all sorts of ideas can get tossed out there, so that they can be improved. I know if I just modded the game myself and never posted anything, it wouldn't be anywhere near as good as having heard feedback and be able to incorporate them.

[Casaubon]

While it requires more programming work than just tweaking existing tables, what about availability limits? Is there a solid reason to not (eventually) go this route?

As things stand, the units seem well-balanced to reflect diversity and historical accuracy. Without having to "re-invent the wheel" by completely re-writing the equipment characteristics, prestige mechanics, etc., couldn't there just be absolute limits on the number of new units in a series available? This would have the virtue of also being historically accurate. And it could change over time. E.g., two panthers total in 1943, three in '44, etc. Likewise, slowly increasing availability of a FW190, etc. would serve to have the two fighters working in tandem.

If I´m not mistaken, this concept was implemented in Panzer General 3D (or as it was titled in german speaking countries: Panzer General 4 Western Aussault). In your camp/unit purchasing screen one could buy only limited numbers of the same type.

[MartyWard]

Again, I don’t quite understand it. Everyone knows you can mod the game (deducter sure does and have often said so). Everyone plays for fun – both people who like comparisons and those who do not. I think it’s all a straw man-type discussion.

Than Zhivago came with his arguments which, I believe, are a repeat of what he wrote in the long discussion on the idea of having fixed amounts of prestige for the scenario. An accusation of “wanting to tie player’s hands against his back”. Again, I do not know how it really relates to the discussion of difficulty levels.

Then I bashed in because I found the difficulties discussion interesting and I do not want it again to spiral into something like that previous discussion. Which was basically “I don’t care what arguments pro fixed amounts of prestige might be, just don’t change the game in any way, because it’s fine as it is”. Repeated again and again, ad nauseam.

And I also dislike the argument about “what developers should do”. I respect and I am interested in your opinion on what YOU believe the game should be like. I makes no sense to guess what developers should be doing – they’ve got minds and problems of their own.

Even if deducter invites all other hardcore-advanced players to this topic and they all agree that the difficulties must be tweaked, it still won’t change the opinion of developers, who have to cater to all players – most of who are of casual level and do not even show up on the forums but who have paid hard cash for the game.

When I say I play it for fun I mean when it comes to the realism vs fun debate, I'm decidely on the fun side. Other probably lean more to the realism side.

I'm not arguing about what the developers should do, I'm just expressing my opinion. They are like anyone else, trying to make a living with limited time and resources. The game as it sits is excellent as are the mods. I would prefer they make new content or improve the AI rather than go back and rebalance the base game to make major changes but that's just my personal wish list.

As far as the game itself being fine, I think it is. There are already dozens of mods, each tweaking the base game a little to reflect what the modder wanted to change, and most are pretty easy to install. It is easy enough to make minor changes to if there is something that really irks you about it, like to much prestige. So I would agree with the 'Don't change the base game' crowd because just about every type of difficulty can already be achieved as it sits now. If, for example, deducter's mod was made the base game (and it makes it much harder for the not so good players), do you think a modder would come along to make it EASIER or more FUN to play the game? Almost all the mods make it more 'realistic' or harder in some way. None make it easier that I know of.

[orlinos]

When I say I play it for fun I mean when it comes to the realism vs fun debate, I'm decidedly on the fun side. Other probably lean more to the realism side.

So that thing we both definitely have in common. My own knowledge of history of war equipment and tactics is very poor and a huge part of it comes from reading this forum. I probably won’t be fooled if anyone claims that Panzer IIIF should have 999 HA (because of its laser eyes) but that’s about it.

So I'm definitely playing for the fun factor. Those big, ugly Matildas in France might as well be dinosaurs.

Almost all the mods make it more 'realistic' or harder in some way. None make it easier that I know of.

Good point, it’s definitely true.

By the way, I’ve been recently thinking about gathering most of the things I learned since I started playing and stuff that is not explicitly covered in the manual. It’s all mostly already in the FAQ and players can find it in the forums, but it might be helpful for newbies or casual players who don’t want to spend all their free time trying to learn why their prized Gebirgsjäger (with trucks) move through mountains just as slow as everyone else. And other details like that.

Do you think there might be a need for that? With the new expansion in town I hope for new players to be caught in the panzer web.

I found a thread in the forums about developers organizing a team to do a game guide some time ago, but I haven’t seen any results.

[MartyWard]

Good point, it’s definitely true.

By the way, I’ve been recently thinking about gathering most of the things I learned since I started playing and stuff that is not explicitly covered in the manual. It’s all mostly already in the FAQ and players can find it in the forums, but it might be helpful for newbies or casual players who don’t want to spend all their free time trying to learn why their prized Gebirgsjäger (with trucks) move through mountains just as slow as everyone else. And other details like that.

Do you think there might be a need for that? With the new expansion in town I hope for new players to be caught in the panzer web.

I found a thread in the forums about developers organizing a team to do a game guide some time ago, but I haven’t seen any results.

A basic strategy guide couldn't hurt for new players. There are some things that are not quite as clear as they could be in the manual, like Gebirgsjägers as you mention. The sticky post with tips and tricks seems to have slowed down as the game ages and forum regulars move on to the new content.

[Zhivago]

The beauty of this game is you can set the 'rules' any way you want or you can just play as it's designed. What could be better than that! I don't buy games to compare myself to anything, I buy them to have fun.

I think we all play the game to have fun. Comparing oneself to something or someone can be a part of it. For example, I am quite proud of my playing tactics right now, because I’ve seen them improve over time. I remember the first time I played Spoils of War in vanilla ’39 – and how shocked I was then. As of lately, I even managed to destroy this big ugly KV with a well-placed cavalry unit and few Stuka runs.

(OK, quite many Stuka runs, because at one point I let KV reinforce itself fully, so I had to kill it twice. There go my superior tactics).

Being proud of improvement demands some ways of comparison. Please, do not mistake it for bragging. I can only speak for oneself, not for deducter but I know that I do not brag – there is nothing to brag about. Even finishing all DLC’s on -95% without reloading would in fact be nothing – it’s just a computer game after all.

Orlinos at the disco party:
Wanna see what my little Pak-36 can do to you, baby?

Can’t score chicks with that.

(Not mentioning the "improvements" in my tactics did nothing to me, when I tried playing multiplayer. I treated my first oponent like the idiot-savant the AI is - which he of course wasn't - and got my ass kicked. When playing the Poland scenario from vanilla campaign. As Germans. It was a massacre...)

[…] I'm playing DLC 40 (for like the 10th time) and the strength of the British Matildas vs the German Panzers still amazes me. This is even more keenly felt in the early AK scenarios. I want a unit comprised of elite fighting units who have scrapped through Europe and AK year after year honing their primordial instincts to kill. Why should I deprive them of the best equipment available? I would rather watch paint dry than to try and take down a Russian IS-2 with a pack of Panzer IIIN's. […] If the Panzer IIC was such a fantastic tank, why is it the Tiger and Panthers that are remembered? I play on Field Marshall, and it seems like the AI has consistently gotten better with each upgrade. I see no reason for a player to tie one hand behind their back playing with dumbed-down units. Leave things the way they are.

I think I am seeing the same discussion that I’ve already read some time ago unfold itself yet again. If you watch deducter’s videos, Panzer IICs or 38(t)s are not used to take full force of AI counterattacks!

I know that’s not the way I use them either. They are fast, so they can cover flanks fast. They are cheap, so I may sometimes risk leaving them somewhere with no artillery support to protect my back or even make an ambush (rarely, I’m bad with that). If they take a lot of punishment, elite replacements and overstrength are cheap. The same with Pak-36 – this little bugger was capable of dealing huge damage to attacking English tanks – which I afterwards finished off with Stukas and Panzer III’s. And I could to it for little prestige.

Using “inferior” equipment is not done for bragging rights or self-flagellation. It’s for efficiency when playing with limited prestige settings. When I need a strong beast in 40-42 (haven’t yet been to 43-45 DLC) – sure, I use the biggest tanks I have. But I do not need to have them everywhere.

I would rather watch paint dry than watch a video produced by deducer. I know the game very well, and I like playing with lots of infantry and arty units, and using tactics. Since you have not played 43-45 DLC, you should reserve judgment. The Eastern Front is an inhospitable place. When you have only 20-25 slots available in some scenarios, those that are not needed by your air units to keep the Russians from sniping at you from above, you will come to appreciate the survivability of a Panther G or Tiger II. It also saves on prestige because they usually do not suffer a lot of combat damage unless you use them like an idiot.

[Zhivago]

["quote=Orlinos"] Than Zhivago came with his arguments which, I believe, are a repeat of what he wrote in the long discussion on the idea of having fixed amounts of prestige for the scenario. An accusation of “wanting to tie player’s hands against his back”. Again, I do not know how it really relates to the discussion of difficulty levels.

Then I bashed in because I found the difficulties discussion interesting and I do not want it again to spiral into something like that previous discussion. Which was basically “I don’t care what arguments pro fixed amounts of prestige might be, just don’t change the game in any way, because it’s fine as it is”. Repeated again and again, ad nauseam.

And I also dislike the argument about “what developers should do”. I respect and I am interested in your opinion on what YOU believe the game should be like. I makes no sense to guess what developers should be doing – they’ve got minds and problems of their own.

Even if deducter invites all other hardcore-advanced players to this topic and they all agree that the difficulties must be tweaked, it still won’t change the opinion of developers, who have to cater to all players – most of who are of casual level and do not even show up on the forums but who have paid hard cash for the game.[/quote]


If you are going to try and paraphrase what I say Orlinos, then make sure you know what I said. There was a major debate on the issue of how "historical" the game is, and I weighed in on with my opinions at the time. If you want to tinker around modding with a unit's abilities, go right ahead. Just don't make me accept your changes, and unless you have concrete historical evidence for why your changes to various units are valid, don't bother wasting your breath arguing it to me. I want to play the game the way that is enjoyable for me.

[Zhivago]

This is a non-issue, especially with the DLC games. New units appear at a glacial pace anyway given the compact time-frames of the scenarios, so by the time something better is available, it is nice to have the option to upgrade to something better. The Allies field new and stronger equipment all of the time. I'm playing DLC 40 (for like the 10th time) and the strength of the British Matildas vs the German Panzers still amazes me. This is even more keenly felt in the early AK scenarios. I want a unit comprised of elite fighting units who have scrapped through Europe and AK year after year honing their primordial instincts to kill. Why should I deprive them of the best equipment available? I would rather watch paint dry than to try and take down a Russian IS-2 with a pack of Panzer IIIN's. The fact of the matter is that after the initial Blitzkriegs of 1939 and 1940, the Germans got caught with their pants down in not having sufficiently capable armor to face the Russians and Brits. A huge part of the German war-effort was to quickly design and implement stronger weapons. All wars are a technology race. If the Panzer IIC was such a fantastic tank, why is it the Tiger and Panthers that are remembered? I play on Field Marshall, and it seems like the AI has consistently gotten better with each upgrade. I see no reason for a player to tie one hand behind their back playing with dumbed-down units. Leave things the way they are.

I don't want to play with one hand tied behind my back either! If I wanted to do that, I could always send my tanks into close terrain without artillery support, or attack entrenched infantry without softening it up with artillery, or send out my Ju 87s unescorted, or intentionally attack a IS-2 with a Panzer IIIN.

I do not want the Panzer IIIN to stand up to a IS-2 or a Panzer IIC to stand up to a T-34. In this game, even a horde of Panzer IIIN couldn't do much to a IS-2, unless the IS-2 is completely isolated with 0 supporting units anywhere near it. I most certainly am not advocating sending a Panzer IIIN to attack a IS-2, sending a Tiger or a JagdPanther or a Tiger II is a much better choice. Or lure the IS-2 into close terrain and kill it with infantry. Or attack it with a Ju 87G or with an elite strategic bomber to exhaust it of ammo. The Panzer IIIN is just as effective at killing an infantry or other soft targets as a Tiger. That's the purpose of the Panzer IIIN.

Historically, isn't it interesting how the Germans won their greatest victory with minimal casualties (about 150,000 German losses vs 2,000,000 casualties/surrendered for the Allies) in 1940 against France (which was considered to have the best army in the world 1940, even by the Germans) and Britain, when the Germans had inferior equipment? And isn't interesting that the Germans were losing badly in 1944, even though by then they were fielding Panthers, Tigers, jet fighters?

For every IS-2 in the DLCs there are about 10 junk units like the T-34 and T-60 and SU-76. For every Matilda II/Somua/CharB1 in GC40 there's about 2-3 Renaults/Hotchkiss/Cruiser/various other junk tanks.

Originally the Germans wanted to shut down production of the Panzer IV in 1943-1944. Guderian, as Inspector of the Armored Troops, convinced them to keep producing Panzer IVs and in fact increase production numbers. Did the father of German armored warfare decide to handicap Germany and intentionally lose the war?

Playing on FM is different way of handicapping yourself. You have -50% experience relative to General. So why are handicaps using difficulty levels acceptable? I'm not trying to be snarky here, I really want to know, why are difficulty levels a good way of self-handicapping but buying "inferior units" not?

Now that I think about it, I do agree with you, there's no need to change any of the existing settings. I respect anyone who likes things the way they are. Rather, this suggestion is really good:

Personally, I believe that there might not be enough of extremely advanced players to justify such big changes to the main game – but an idea of “difficulty packs” made by modders seems pretty plausible. (Grand Campaign Revisions e-file is already such a pack, in a way).

My only caveat is that "difficulty packs" could use some attention from the developers too. Adding new rulesets could be a very good idea to extend the longevity of the game. And being able to discussion these things openly is great, because all sorts of ideas can get tossed out there, so that they can be improved. I know if I just modded the game myself and never posted anything, it wouldn't be anywhere near as good as having heard feedback and be able to incorporate them.

The Germans won their greatest victories (in terms of numbers of Allied troops defeated/captured) early in the war by employing blitzkrieg and combined arms tactics (a new concept at the time that the Allies had no answer to). Once the novelty was over, WW2 became a numbers and supply game. The Germans had superior equipment later in the war, but they were overwhelmed by the Allies numbers. I would argue that the Germans fought some of their best battles in the last two years of the war while on the defensive. See the Korsun breakout, for example.

I buy the best equipment I can afford because it does a better job, especially when it is upgraded and retains the experience it has gained through the campaign. I play Field Marshall not for the point handicap, but for the strengthened AI. Using the reverse of your argument, I could play the Sargent level with all out-dated equipment. I would just get tons more prestige to buy more mediocre units with against a lax AI.

The only way to make a unit truly historical is to give it a random range of its possible initial strength and initiative levels. Some units are naturally, on average, better than others, and some units can be trained to become good. When you buy a new Panzer IVG, you might get one with better than average strength and initiative, or one with a crew that needs to be whipped into shape over the course of many battles in order to earn higher initiative levels (obviously this is where heroes come into play) The better you do in battles, your leadership charisma should influence the types of units available to you, as well as the quality of units. I assume that I am leading an elite corps when I play. It would be nice to have access to elite weaponry earlier than historically available as a reward for victory (kind of like getting the Jadjtiger in DLC 44.

[deducter]

Just fyi General and FM have the exact same AI. This information can be seen in the new diff.pzdat file.

The only way to make a unit truly historical is to give it a random range of its possible initial strength and initiative levels. Some units are naturally, on average, better than others, and some units can be trained to become good. When you buy a new Panzer IVG, you might get one with better than average strength and initiative, or one with a crew that needs to be whipped into shape over the course of many battles in order to earn higher initiative levels (obviously this is where heroes come into play) The better you do in battles, your leadership charisma should influence the types of units available to you, as well as the quality of units. I assume that I am leading an elite corps when I play. It would be nice to have access to elite weaponry earlier than historically available as a reward for victory (kind of like getting the Jadjtiger in DLC 44.

This is a very interesting idea, I like it a lot.

[Zhivago]

Just fyi General and FM have the exact same AI. This information can be seen in the new diff.pzdat file.

The only way to make a unit truly historical is to give it a random range of its possible initial strength and initiative levels. Some units are naturally, on average, better than others, and some units can be trained to become good. When you buy a new Panzer IVG, you might get one with better than average strength and initiative, or one with a crew that needs to be whipped into shape over the course of many battles in order to earn higher initiative levels (obviously this is where heroes come into play) The better you do in battles, your leadership charisma should influence the types of units available to you, as well as the quality of units. I assume that I am leading an elite corps when I play. It would be nice to have access to elite weaponry earlier than historically available as a reward for victory (kind of like getting the Jadjtiger in DLC 44.

This is a very interesting idea, I like it a lot.

Once in a while I make sense.