Rarity concept in service of variety

[uran21]

Rarity concept for purpose of this topic will be defined like this:

Every unit has availability date attached to it. Rarity would mean that at the date unit becomes available it is available in limited numbers and how time goes by this limit is changing until at some point in time unit becomes available in unlimited numbers (defined by core slots and available prestige of course).

We have two questions to deal with.

First is how rarity concept can contribute to the variety of players core units within the same class.

Second question is related to popularity/unpopularity of this concept that often pops up when certain limitation to units is mentioned.

Let us discuss what is EXACTLY the basis on which certain concepts are treated as popular/unpopular.

Hypothesis I am going to laid down is the following. Games obviously function with some artificially created limits set in them.
There are limits which are more flexible and there are limits which are more rigid. Flexible limits are the ones acceptable to the players. Rigid limits are unpopular.

Availability date is an obvious artificially created limit. Before certain unit becomes available player is allowed to have exactly ZERO amount of the same.
When unit becomes available player is entitled to have as much as his core slots and prestige allows him to. So availability of unit is placed on two extremes of one scale.
What if we do not change this two extremes but place one step in between?!

So when unit becomes available it is available in limited numbers. Number of available units is increasing with time until it is finally removed at some point.
In both cases, with or without rarity concept as described in this topic, on the question "Can I have all Panther core?" answer is "Yes you can!".
Difference is ...when.

So rarity concept can be described as extended availability date concept.

[Carius]

Been there done that with PGIIID and PGIIISE. I always thought it was a good addition to the games that brought in one way to balance the game. It can be difficult to balance campaigns with just limiting prestige alone.

[monkspider]

This is a brilliant idea! Please implement it soon. I think it would be an elegant way of addressing the "all King Tiger/ME 262" core issue.

[Kamerer]

I am very much in favor of this.

In your previous thread on variety, this was my preferred solution.

Let me make a further suggestion, which may not at all be practical: have this feature apply to General level and above, but not below? I don't know how feasible that is, but it would thus give an advantage to beginning players at easier levels.

When I first started playing the game, I needed all the prestige and top-level units I could get my hands on. But now I am playing through the GC on rommel and artificially limiting my upgrades (e.g, only one FW190 upgrade every two scenarios, etc.). It adds just a little more strategy to the game in both managing your core as well as combat tactics.

[ThvN]

uran21, you're asking some serious questions about game mechanics lately. I like that. But I have a boring answer. A lot is known about the equipment portraited in Panzer Corps. The dates when certain equipment gets ordered, and the dates the production starts, units roll of the line, get delivered to units, deployed and used for the first time. All these dates can mean something different in the game. Right now you just have too choose wat sort of 'date' gives the player full access to the equipment, and that's it.

I can imagine that people would like a sliding scale, where units become avaible at a certain date, but get easier to acquire (less prestige?) as time moves on. Right now it is 'all or nothing'. With some equipment this is OK, when new versions get introduced it was in reality often just a matter of combining different small upgrades into a new designation, like Panzer IV F/2 to Panzer IV G for example, ot the StuG III models. This is a sort of evolutionary development, the game demands a date set in stone but the actual upgrades where more of a continious evolution. This system is OK, especially with the experience bonuses, but when a new 'family' of equipment is introduced, ususally early deployment would, in reality, lead to extra costs or other limitations.

The easiest example I can think of right now is the Panther tank. Hastily put in production, not developed enough to be very effective, but still, the first version (D) was introduced and later on used at a certain date. The Soviets had the same problems as they struggled to introduce upgraded equipment, but not all factories could switch to the newer model, so availability of newly developed versions was a process, not something you can put at a fixed day in history. So although new features were introduced continuously, it hard to pin a certain date on some upgrades. Different factories updated their output at different dates. So mostly, it is an arbitrary date when new equipment becomes available, a matter of (informed) opinion.

But I did notice a dilemma I faced with certain units which in reality were available in very limited quantities. The Sturmpanzer I is the first and best example of it. 38 were built, no more. In AK, the sIG 33 is available, but of this vehicle only 24 were built. Barely one unit in Panzer Corps could be equipped, but the player can buy all he wants. So, some types of equipment were in reality manufactured in very limited quantities for various reasons, but in Panzer Corps all equipment is being treated as being able to be mass-produced in the hundreds. In the 'vanilla' France scenario, StuGIII is pre-deployed but you cannot buy it yet. This looks to me to be an elegant solution, but it requires more work of the the map makers. Maybe an extra difficulty setting would be appropiate, limiting the player to only certain numbers of particular units. Or, as an example, a different approch like how the the bonus (elite) units work, this might be a more accurate system of allowing the player to use new equipment. The player could be offered a new unit to buy, but would get only one at increased cost, and it could be handicapped or irreplaceble. Only at a later date would the unit be normally available. But that would introduce randomness to the availability of advanced capabilities.

What could be done is to split off availability dates in some sort set of secondary availability dates, for example a date when equipment first becomes available for purchase, but the cost is higher and/or only one can be purchased. Or the units are substandard until after a certian date, but this might be too dificult to model, like reliability. So maybe allow a 'limited' availability date. Then, after a certain date, the equipment becomes 'unlimited' for purchase. Still, this does not account for particulary rare units, like the Sturmpanzer I. Maybe allow just one to be bought, but I think this is too limiting on players who like to experiment. I like experimenting with ahistorical equipment. Maybe this could be represented in a special difficulty setting.

The game already features fantasy equipment (Maus, KV-5, Do-335), which I think is fun, because some scenarios are not historical anyway. But when playing the DLc's I mostly limit myself to a single Sturmpanzer I, although I often buy it in 1939, while the first units where actually built in January 1940. But it is hard to explain why you can buy dozens of new models of Panzers on the first day of it being available. So maybe a simple system of 'stages' of availability would be nice. Well, that's my two cents for now...

For example, have a setting in the eqp file to limit the amount of certain units until certain dates are met. Or, have a 'secondary' bonus system, where some units become available to be bought early by the player at random, but they are more expensive and not replaceable until the next 'date' limit in the eqp file, encouraging players to treat them more carefully, because losses are irreplaceable.

So, plenty of ideas, but also plenty of opinions. On a different note, I think a lot of people would like to see modellling of reliability, giving an extra depth to switching to newer but less reliable equipment.

[Kamerer]

On a different note, I think a lot of people would like to see modellling of reliability, giving an extra depth to switching to newer but less reliable equipment.

This is also something I have thought about! I wish that when the Panthers first come out, for the next three/four months or whatever, a certain percentage of the time they move three hexes and the final drive unit breaks, so they are stuck there a turn!

Of course, there are limits to what is reasonable from both a programming view, and also from a playing experience. But this might also serve uran21's purpose of making players hesitate to always buy the next/best thing en masse as it comes available. When such units come available, a note like, "Unit has not been fully field tested." would alert the player to possible gremlins.

[ThvN]

This is also something I have thought about! I wish that when the Panthers first come out, for the next three/four months or whatever, a certain percentage of the time they move three hexes and the final drive unit breaks, so they are stuck there a turn!

Ah, yes, I remember you bringing up the questions about modelling reliability, so credit where it's due! The Panther is probably the most famous example, deducter simulates the reliability with fuel/ammo limitations, but that doesn't quite come close to having to abandon your flanking drive because everyone is busy fixing transmissions! Maybe there can be a tie-in for something like Bergepanzer, to 'repair' or 'resupply' units, so you could attach a 'transport' unit or something, (based on the new Sd.Kfz.7?) to boost it's below-average statistics, or make it switchable to simulate special circumstances. Just throwing out ideas, I've got no idea if something like this would appeal to most people. I vividly remember one game with reliability modelling, Jagged Alliance 2, and there's nothing like a jamming gun after you've swam through a swamp and suddenly encounter enemies... Still memorable after all these years.

Oh, and if I'm brainstorming, have experience influence the reliability? For example, demand to assign new and 'untested' equipment to units with at least a certain amount of experience?

Of course, there are limits to what is reasonable from both a programming view, and also from a playing experience. But this might also serve uran21's purpose of making players hesitate to always buy the next/best thing en masse as it comes available. When such units come available, a note like, "Unit has not been fully field tested." would alert the player to possible gremlins.

Increasing choices is always nice, if it serves a purpose. Using new but unreliable equipment might appeal to the 'gambling' gamers, although it could be problematic for the 'chess' gamers who demand a certain amount of predictability (unlike an evasive submarine, as a bad example). But it might please both sides if such units are not only limited in reliability but also in number. I also think uran's question was more about limiting the number of Panther you can buy when newly introduced than trying to model reliability. So maybe a sort of extra layer of purchasing options is needed to accomodate that.

Within the existing framework, a unit that gets assigned a new generation of equipment might take a hit in experience levels, so players will want to wait until upgrading, or scenarios could be setup to provide challenges with new equipment, where meeting certain objectives with experimental eqp will allow the player to earn/keep them. See the acquired bonus units in AK if certain objectives are met (can't give away spoilers yet, sorry).

[soldier]

I would definitely like a rarity option in Panzer Corps but it has been done poorly in some other wargames. It would have to be specific to the unit not class. Some units like standard infantry should be exempt

[Mark50]

Rarity concept for purpose of this topic will be defined like this:

Every unit has availability date attached to it. Rarity would mean that at the date unit becomes available it is available in limited numbers and how time goes by this limit is changing until at some point in time unit becomes available in unlimited numbers (defined by core slots and available prestige of course).

The limited availability of a unit entering service can only be defined universally if the game has a single battlefield scale. PzC doesn`t. It goes from very large-whole front like battles to small battalion size like operations. The same amount of available equipment would in a large battle translate into a single unit, but in a small scale environment(like the Grand Campaigns) it would be enough to equip alot more units. In theory you could have a historical scenario where we know equipment X was used by a single unit(and the game would restrict this new unit to a single piece) and that`s simple to depict in a large scale scenario. When doing a small scale scenario though you might have to depict the historical fact that that unit attacked with said equipment from more than one direction. You`d need 3 units of said equipment on the small scale map, but the game would only allow you one.

Thus, limited availability of newly available equipment is imo a wholly arbitrary tool designed for people who need limits imposed from outside to govern their own actions. I have no such self control problem so tend to use newly available equipment depending on how I want to play the game(as opposed to how others would like me to play it).

I would also add that going from not really knowing what happens on the battlefield and feeling the urge to buy the best equipment for the entire army to the attitude where you want to succeed with a more historically orientated army composition and then maybe to the approach of buying the poorest units and trying to win with them is one of the things that make this game replayable. Imo liberty of choice is not there just for different kind of players that the different persons are, but for the different kind of player the same person may become in time.

Second question is related to popularity/unpopularity of this concept that often pops up when certain limitation to units is mentioned.

I`ve no idea what a poll would show, but yes, it is unpopular with me for the reason mentioned above. Of course, I`d have no problem with such a feature if it would be an ingame option that could be checked and unchecked as opposed to the compulsory standard.

[robman]

I really like the idea of modeling reliability, perhaps as an "x" chance of a sudden loss of movement (per turn, or per movement hex). It might also be possible to model repair beyond clicking "resupply," perhaps (as suggested above) by making recovery vehicles available and giving them "repair" powers. Since the fancy big new units we all know and love usually suffered major reliability issues, this would add another interesting tradeoff to force composition choices.

[soldier]

The limited availability of a unit entering service can only be defined universally if the game has a single battlefield scale. PzC doesn`t. It goes from very large-whole front like battles to small battalion size like operations.

This a good point. Rarity would be somewhat pointless in the original campaign where you can go from a battle like Crete to operation Typhoon in a couple of scenarios. It could work much better for The DLC's where the scale seems much more synchronous.

Thus, limited availability of newly available equipment is imo a wholly arbitrary tool designed for people who need limits imposed from outside to govern their own actions. I have no such self control problem so tend to use newly available equipment depending on how I want to play the game(as opposed to how others would like me to play it).

It has nothing to do with a lack of self control, or some kind of desire to have my purchasing impulses restrained, (at least not for me). I think it might add a more historical flavour to the campaign so that you can only deploy units that a real German commander might have had at his disposal at the time and face those challenges. Yet so often on this forum when something like this is suggested so many people state that their freedom to play Panzer Corps how they like it is at stake. Just because i may like something doesn't mean i wan't to "impose it on others".
Considering that the developers have stated many times that freedom of play is one of there guiding ethos for Panzer Corps, i think your pretty safe and i'd be more worried that 90% of things that get discussed here never see the light of day. And if they did (which is unlikely) they would almost certainly be optional.

[Zhivago]

Rarity concept for purpose of this topic will be defined like this:

Every unit has availability date attached to it. Rarity would mean that at the date unit becomes available it is available in limited numbers and how time goes by this limit is changing until at some point in time unit becomes available in unlimited numbers (defined by core slots and available prestige of course).

We have two questions to deal with.

First is how rarity concept can contribute to the variety of players core units within the same class.

Second question is related to popularity/unpopularity of this concept that often pops up when certain limitation to units is mentioned.

Let us discuss what is EXACTLY the basis on which certain concepts are treated as popular/unpopular.

Hypothesis I am going to laid down is the following. Games obviously function with some artificially created limits set in them.
There are limits which are more flexible and there are limits which are more rigid. Flexible limits are the ones acceptable to the players. Rigid limits are unpopular.

Availability date is an obvious artificially created limit. Before certain unit becomes available player is allowed to have exactly ZERO amount of the same.
When unit becomes available player is entitled to have as much as his core slots and prestige allows him to. So availability of unit is placed on two extremes of one scale.
What if we do not change this two extremes but place one step in between?!

So when unit becomes available it is available in limited numbers. Number of available units is increasing with time until it is finally removed at some point.
In both cases, with or without rarity concept as described in this topic, on the question "Can I have all Panther core?" answer is "Yes you can!".
Difference is ...when.

So rarity concept can be described as extended availability date concept.

Don't set rarity limits on units--set random factors. See my post on the topic.

[Rudankort]

I have a vague feeling that the concept of rarity will solve the problem which other existing mechanisms are supposed to solve already, but they do not work well. In this particular case, adding rarity limit to the game will result in player getting Tigers, Panthers etc. one at a time. So you have one Tiger in your core first, then two, then three etc. Prestige limitation is supposed to give the same result. Tigers and Panthers are expensive, and you pay full price for upgrades. So normally, you would only get a few in one go. Why this does not work? Because of the fundamental problem of people "swimming in prestige in late campaign". So, I would suggest to fix this first, and then see if any new limitations (which will be unpopular at least with some people anyway) will be needed at all. The problem with abundant prestige has a lot of implications - not only "best units in the core", but also "always elite replacements" and "always maximum over-strength". A whole dimension of complexity is removed from the game - you do not make choices, you can just have it all. In my opinion, this is the issue which we need to discuss in the first place.

[Mark50]

Isn`t the vanilla PzC campaign kinda short to have equipment introduced one piece at a time? Those very good tanks and planes only appear a few years after the start when there aren`t that many battles left to be fought. If you start giving Panthers drop by drop wouldn`t that make using Panthers a very elusive experience? If things go well in your campaign and you keep taking out adversaries I see no reason for the historically limited numbers to be valid anymore(towards the end anyway).

If you really want variety, in my opinion, the only reasonable solution you have is to offer very long campaigns. That`s from my experience with civ 4(I think) for example. By default you went through the campaign rather quickly and it tended to be a rush to get to the best equipment and then everybody had that. But there is also a marathon option iirc for everything to take longer(to research and so on). It makes the game longer in the sense that it takes more time to get from an age to the other, from a tech to the next and ultimately longer to reach the top level of equipment. Units that you`d normally never use were actually becoming worthwhile because there was enough time for them to be the most effective thing at a time. If your campaign would have more battles you`d not get a popup with 10 new units of which you`d choose the best and ignore the rest, but with just a couple. And suddenly it would be worthwhile to use some of the versions of Pz III and so on. The DLC series kinda addressed this.

Anyway, may I ask what the ultimate point for this discussion is? Obviously it is dev sanctioned. But most of the DLC and a good deal of the standard campaigns are already done. What will it serve to reach a conclusion that equipment should be limited? Are you gonna re-balance the already released campaigns or is this something for the future alone(which seems to mean allied expansion and western DLC).

[fsx]

Perhaps its possible to separete two types of prestige.

First one is the prestige for refill units in/after the scenario and for updating units and elite replacements. Its not so easy to predict the amount.
Perhaps it is adjustable in the diff.pzdat and the scenario-File

diff: Refill 100% - is to add at the end of a scenario the amount of prestige the player needs for refill units to 10 (Also for the elite-replacement: 75% say: You can refill all units (100% refill), but only 75% (elite refill) with elite replacements).

scenario-File: Refill: amount of prestige (depending on difficulty level)
-> minimum from both results given to the player

Also for overstrength. For updates and refill during the scenario the designer can use a fix amount, because he knows the new equipment available in the next scenario.



Second one is additional prestige (for reaching special objectives, capture citys..) and DV and MV-prestige.

[Rudankort]

Isn`t the vanilla PzC campaign kinda short to have equipment introduced one piece at a time? Those very good tanks and planes only appear a few years after the start when there aren`t that many battles left to be fought. If you start giving Panthers drop by drop wouldn`t that make using Panthers a very elusive experience? If things go well in your campaign and you keep taking out adversaries I see no reason for the historically limited numbers to be valid anymore(towards the end anyway).

This is a valid point, but I think, the topic itself implies that campaign design would correspond with adding this new feature. In existing main campaign it will not work. In Grand Campaign it will. Personally, I've come to a conclusion that an optimal scenario count in this game is about 4-5 scens per year.

[Rudankort]

Perhaps its possible to separete two types of prestige.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and it might well be the way to go in this kind of games.

[Rudankort]

Anyway, may I ask what the ultimate point for this discussion is? Obviously it is dev sanctioned. But most of the DLC and a good deal of the standard campaigns are already done. What will it serve to reach a conclusion that equipment should be limited? Are you gonna re-balance the already released campaigns or is this something for the future alone(which seems to mean allied expansion and western DLC).

I participate in this discussion not as a dev but just as everybody else. Kresimir (uran21) could have other motifs, but for me such discussions are interesting as a source of inspiration for future games. PzC is already a settled enough game with a lot of content published for it, and I don't think we can really implement deep suggestions like this one in it.

[Mark50]

This is a valid point, but I think, the topic itself implies that campaign design would correspond with adding this new feature. In existing main campaign it will not work. In Grand Campaign it will. Personally, I've come to a conclusion that an optimal scenario count in this game is about 4-5 scens per year.

I would have loved that number in the main campaign. By my quick count you can squeeze something like 15 scenarios currently while still winning. Even if you`d only get 3 scenarios in Poland and you end up in the USA where there are only 3 scenarios again(you might add another for Canada maybe) you`d still have a total of over 20 scenarios for the main campaign. It would be splendid. And it would have given you the possibility to create more diverse battles, not just in terms of maps, but also units used or encountered.

While we talk about rarity I`d like to touch on another aspect of rarity that you haven`t brought on, but which is important imo. It sorta works the opposite than what has been discussed above. The enemy equipment! I think it makes the campaign much more interesting if you meet diverse adversaries. In an axis campaign for example, you start against polish units and then you start meeting norwegian, dutch and belgian equipment, you move through french and so on. When you get to a new map you wonder what you`ll face. How their units will look and how good those units will be. It builds excitement I think. So far PzC has skipped some important units for the allied side and this made the game more predictable and not as varied as it could have been. In the standard campaign they`re just missing, but in the DLC some odd situations appeared because of this lack of diversity. For example you get drowned in allied CR.42(two as Gladiators in Norway, then in Belgium, then 2 in the Dutch airforce substituting Fokkers and finally two of them in Yugoslavia instead of.. who knows). It would have been nice to have more units for the smaller nations so that you encounter more diverse adversaries, both esthetically and in terms of unit stats. And I think something like a dozen more units all across the board would have been sufficient. Maybe something would be done when you get to the allied campaigns.

[deducter]

I have a vague feeling that the concept of rarity will solve the problem which other existing mechanisms are supposed to solve already, but they do not work well. In this particular case, adding rarity limit to the game will result in player getting Tigers, Panthers etc. one at a time. So you have one Tiger in your core first, then two, then three etc. Prestige limitation is supposed to give the same result. Tigers and Panthers are expensive, and you pay full price for upgrades. So normally, you would only get a few in one go. Why this does not work? Because of the fundamental problem of people "swimming in prestige in late campaign". So, I would suggest to fix this first, and then see if any new limitations (which will be unpopular at least with some people anyway) will be needed at all. The problem with abundant prestige has a lot of implications - not only "best units in the core", but also "always elite replacements" and "always maximum over-strength". A whole dimension of complexity is removed from the game - you do not make choices, you can just have it all. In my opinion, this is the issue which we need to discuss in the first place.

Yes, if you set prestige limits to be tight and make heavy tanks suitably expensive, then there's no issue at all. But if you lay the grand campaigns, prestige is never an issue even after GC39, and heavy tanks actually end up saving prestige. However, many players struggle enough with prestige, and lowering it on the default difficulties is not a good idea either. Perhaps more official difficulty levels could be implemented, with more a difference between Colonel -> General -> FM.