Auxiliary Units

[Ballacraine]

One feature which I would like, other than in cheat code is the ability to purchase Auxiliary units in a scenario.
IIRC Auxiliary units could be purchased in PG.

I am thinking more from the point of view as having a Garrison level unit available to hold Gold Hexes, so you don't have to leave part of your front line fighting force behind.

Currently you either have to risk leaving them unguarded, detach a battle damaged lower grade unit, which will be more vulnerable to any attack or commit a full strength core unit to guard duty.

Balla.

[Kamerer]

That is a good idea. Perhaps limited to infantry units, with little offensive ability, and no transport capability. A Bodenstandig unit.

[Razz1]

This is just a way to increase your core.

Thus making the maps easier.

There are not very many maps where you have to leave units behind in a city that I can recall.

[boredatwork]

The reason the ability to buy Aux units was removed in Beta was in PG it was too easy to disband crappy aux units and pour extra prestige into much more usefull units like extra artillery or airpower which trivialised the content.

I am thinking more from the point of view as having a Garrison level unit available to hold Gold Hexes, so you don't have to leave part of your front line fighting force behind.

Currently you either have to risk leaving them unguarded, detach a battle damaged lower grade unit, which will be more vulnerable to any attack or commit a full strength core unit to guard duty.

Balla.

That is a good idea. Perhaps limited to infantry units, with little offensive ability, and no transport capability. A Bodenstandig unit.

While restricting purchasing to garrison infantry might prevent the above problem - I'm still not sure it would really improve the game.

Whether or not there should be a danger of objective hexes being recaptured and forcing players to choose between leaving an objective ungarded or assign elements of his core to do the job should be at the discretion of the ***scenario designer***. If the scenario designer put in elements which could threaten previously captured objectives then *he* should either provide the necessary auxiluary units to serve as garrison **OR** he is intending the player to have to balance how much of his core to commit to the offense versus keeping on defense.

Arguably the best example of the latter is the DLC Kharkov 43 scenario where you have to balance how much of your core you have to detach to guard your right flank as you advance. Being able to magically port in auxiluary to cover the flank instead would make for a much less interesting set of choices IMO.

[Kamerer]

There are numerous scenarios in the East campaign where you don't really have the forces or time to capture the whole map, there are VH's strewn about, and the AI can spam units all over the place and grab one of them.

If the unit spamming rules were tweaked to be more realistic, I don't think this would be necessary. Balla's suggestion helps add a degree of realism to counter some unrealistic elements of early GC's.

[boredatwork]

There are numerous scenarios in the East campaign where you don't really have the forces or time to capture the whole map, there are VH's strewn about, and the AI can spam units all over the place and grab one of them.

If the unit spamming rules were tweaked to be more realistic, I don't think this would be necessary. Balla's suggestion helps add a degree of realism to counter some unrealistic elements of early GC's.

I disagree that the current DLC AI reinforcements are unrealistic (within the context of the *game*, obviously)

First, eastern front memoirs of German commanders are full of accounts of having to deal with constant unexpected Soviet counter attacks to their flanks because the infantry armies following behind hadn't caught up yet.

Second - after GC40 the AI cannot "spam units all over the place" - most of the AI force is *already on the map* pre-placed waiting to be triggered, either by time or player action. That means it is entirely within the player's power to be prepared for it which, IMO, should be the essence of what a good strategy game involves - analysing the probability then allocating your resources appropriately.

1. If I clear a given section of the map the AI will not magically spawn units there after I leave it (with a very few exceptions such as the boats on the Volga).
2. If I can't clear the section because it is too large or too out of the way then I should use recon to scout it out and determine if a threat exists (it will be either on map already or I will see the city tiles which I know *could* spawn units.
3. If a threat is found or if weather/AA defenses/terrain/etc prevent recon then one should be prepared to detach core units to screen the zone adequately. How is this not realistic? The panzer groups in Russia were always having to divert units to counter threats to their flanks)
4. Screening force effectiveness can be maximised by stationing the forces on choke points (bridges, forest roads, etc) and by sufficient recon to allow shuffling of fire brigades, support units and air support in a timely fashion.

I find the above to be far more enjoyable challenges than the firepower fest of the main attack, and reasonably consistant with the eastern front literature I've read.

Likewise on the defensive side I find much of the fun being *not* able to cover everything and having to juggle strength around the map. Look at one of the GC44 Bagration scenarios where the partisans were behind the front line - again interesting choice: how much of my force do I use to counter them at the expense of defending against the main attack. If I could just buy an auxiliary garrison unit for all my behind the lines cities to deny them to the partisans where would the challenge be?

[Ballacraine]

The Garrison auxiliary units I am referring to would be available only for that scenario.

I think if anything it would allow more flexibility of tactical approach for a scenario.

If you don't feel you have the need for them, then don't buy them.

Bodenstandig would do it fine.

Balla.

[Ballacraine]

This is just a way to increase your core.

Thus making the maps easier.

There are not very many maps where you have to leave units behind in a city that I can recall.

As a PG veteran, I always try to guard VHs.

Nothing is more frustrating than having a weak damaged enemy unit recapture an undefended VH at the opposite end of the map on the last turn.

Balla.

[Rudankort]

An option to buy auxiliary units never makes scenario more difficult, but it can easily make it trivial, especially if the player has a lot of prestige. Even if we limit aux units to the cheapest infantry, a wave of such infantry can easily block even the strongest tank (like Tiger II), deplete its ammo and make it open to attack by other units. All content we have released so far was balanced with existing mechanics in mind, and adding this option can easily break the balance. So no, we won't enable this for official PzC campaigns. But you should be able to mod our scenarios and enable this option if you so want.

[Ballacraine]

An option to buy auxiliary units never makes scenario more difficult, but it can easily make it trivial, especially if the player has a lot of prestige. Even if we limit aux units to the cheapest infantry, a wave of such infantry can easily block even the strongest tank (like Tiger II), deplete its ammo and make it open to attack by other units. All content we have released so far was balanced with existing mechanics in mind, and adding this option can easily break the balance. So no, we won't enable this for official PzC campaigns. But you should be able to mod our scenarios and enable this option if you so want.

I am never troubled with a lot of prestige.

I am not talking about 'waves', just sufficient to garrison a one or two VHs.
The request was for it to be an option, not compulsory.
As I said, I feel it would add to tactical options rather than detract from gameplay.

Balla.

[deducter]

An option to buy auxiliary units never makes scenario more difficult, but it can easily make it trivial, especially if the player has a lot of prestige. Even if we limit aux units to the cheapest infantry, a wave of such infantry can easily block even the strongest tank (like Tiger II), deplete its ammo and make it open to attack by other units. All content we have released so far was balanced with existing mechanics in mind, and adding this option can easily break the balance. So no, we won't enable this for official PzC campaigns. But you should be able to mod our scenarios and enable this option if you so want.

I am never troubled with a lot of prestige.

I am not talking about 'waves', just sufficient to garrison a one or two VHs.
The request was for it to be an option, not compulsory.
As I said, I feel it would add to tactical options rather than detract from gameplay.

Balla.

You can do this already, by using cheat codes.

core #N
Adds #N to core slots (can be negative)

aux #N
Adds #N to aux slots (can be negative)

Something like this makes sense to be tied to the difficulty level. If you are playing on Colonel, sure, why not give the player a few more effective core slots? But if you are playing on FM, then you can't just buy aux units as you please, you have to think carefully about the distribution of your units. Not something that I expect to change in this game, but could be a good idea for expansions/sequels.

[KeldorKatarn]

To be honest I don't even see the issue here. So far I haven't seen a single scenario (playing main campaign, AK, GCs 39-41) where this was even remotely an issue. It is incredibly simple to make sure backward hexes are not captured. Yes it happened to me a few times but only because I left a flank too open or didn't scout or clear out something enough, and that while it was always possible to do just that. I was simply playing sloppy. For the same reason I lose core units or miss out on a plane needing to be refuled. That doesn't mean the game needs fixing, that means I need to go to bed and continue playing when I can actually concentrate hehe
Usually your units will form a front line that cannot be penetrated without that being noticed, and even while often you cannot block the entire width or height of the map, you can leave gaps where you know by terrain that nothing can slip through there fast enough to not be spotted.
Yes unit spamming at city hexes is a bit annoying and unrealistic to some degree depending on the city location, but it isn't completely out of the blue. If you leave a city unblocked it is a point that the enemy has under its control to use as a ralying point or a buildup point for reinforcements. It's absolutely realistic. And a single unit capturing a VH and preventing your victory? Well in real life you just left an entire combat ready bataillon run rampant in your rear, possibly cutting supply and communication lines, possibly even ambushing a high command. So yeah, that IS bad. But leaving troops behind to garison stuff isn't the solution, that's patching things up. If you move tactically advance you can prevent this from it being possible, or at least minimize the chance of it happening without you being able to react to it.
So in my opinion, as arrogant as it may sound, but I had to learn this myself... the solution, again in my opinion only, is not to change the rules, but to learn to play better by the existing ones... and that comes from someone who's been angry about soviet recon units in my rear since PG days. But I got better and that just never happens to me anymore, and I never garison cities. It's all about knowing where to put your units, where to advance them, and how to control ground. Not unlike real military command training where you have to realize first that you cannot put forces everywhere, but that there are multiple ways on controling a terrain.

[nikivdd]

Everybody has a different style of playing. If players wish to add auxiliaries, core units or prestige, why not? As long as it is fun for the player.
AI unit spawn depends on how many unit slots and prestige the AI has. If you set unit slots to 0 for the AI in the DLC scenarios, it is not going to spawn any. Scripted AI reinforcements is ofcourse a different matter, they will appear no matter what.

[Ballacraine]

I really don't understand why folk are getting so agitated about this.

Yes, I knew it was available under cheat codes, I was only asking for additional OPTION without having to resort to cheat codes.

If you don't want it, don't use it.

Balla.

[deducter]

I really don't understand why folk are getting so agitated about this.

Yes, I knew it was available under cheat codes, I was only asking for additional OPTION without having to resort to cheat codes.

If you don't want it, don't use it.

Balla.

I can't speak for others, but for me personally, I enjoy playing a well-designed, thought-provoking strategy game in which the rules are clear, not arbitrary. For players to meaningfully discuss strategy and tactics, there needs to be a uniform standard of comparison; everyone must be playing with the same rules for comparisons to be valid.

Right now, after you played several years of GCs, for many players prestige ceases to become an issue and core size becomes the only limiting factor. For instance, the GC44East boredatwork referred to is Vilna. In that scenario, the player gets 36 core slots. You don't like that, and decide to give yourself an extra 10 auxiliary units to guard some rear areas, so effectively that's 46 core slots. That would trivialize a substantial portion of the challenge, in which you have to decide where to deploy your units and how to use them most effectively. If you just give yourself enough units to cover the entire map, that challenge is gone.

My point is, an option like this should be tied to difficulty in some way. That way, you play on Colonel, you get some extra effective core slots, and you don't have to worry about that component of the challenge. Once the player improves on his tactics and feels confident, perhaps he will advance up in difficulty, and then on Field Marshall, he won't have those extra units and will have to think a lot more about rear/flank protection. A more in-depth difficulty system like this could make replaying the game a richer experience.

[boredatwork]

I really don't understand why folk are getting so agitated about this.

Yes, I knew it was available under cheat codes, I was only asking for additional OPTION without having to resort to cheat codes.

If you don't want it, don't use it.

Balla.

I don't understand why you don't think the cheat codes don't count as an OPTION?

[Ballacraine]

Well, I would just rather not have to use cheat codes.

Balla.

[boredatwork]

But you're missing the point that even a handfull of cheap infantry has balance issues. The scenarios were not balance for you to have the option to do that. Why mess with balance for the ***average*** gamer, who isn't going to know how many aux units he can buy without making the game too easy, when what you want to do can already be done AS AN OPTION.

Again I don't see your issue with using the "cheat" codes. They just options to give more flexibility in the way you play. Given that this isn't a tournament, modifying the game to suit YOUR tastes isn't "cheating".

I don't particularly enjoy having random SE units shoved down my throat and having core "slots" forever tied to them. BUT I can use the "all eqp" and "core #" cheats to buy the SE units I want, and then deploy as many or as few as I like while still keeping the scenario balanced. Given the game has the options for the functionality *I* want, I see no need to expect the designers to make buying SE units a "legal" option for *this* game.

[Ballacraine]

I suppose it is how you view the cheat codes.

Perhaps I would probably be more at ease with them if I thought of them as 'custom options', rather than as 'cheating.'

Balla.

[krugec]

IF I have extra prestige, I like to save as many aux units I can,and upgrade them if possible.This way they provide decent support and in the end you lose less prestige because your lines hold better.