Gameplay changes in 1.20

[monkspider]

I think most of the changes are quite brilliant but I really don't like the overstrength not being tied to experience. It breaks the game in certain ways and just feels wrong. Being able to get that unit up to higher levels of experience and unlocking an extra level of overstrengh is very rewarding. Being able to overstrengh any old unit cheapens that satisfaction and just feels like cheating.

[IainMcNeil]

Do we charge the elite replacements cost for over strength units? If not is charging the Elite reinforcements price enough to make it less of a game winning tactic?

Alternatively what about limiting the number of attacks to your experience level. You can over strength 0xp Stukas to 15 but it only attacks as a 10, but means if it takes damage you dont have to repair it in mission. It makes large conscript units possible but means they wont be lethal, just take more time to kill.

[Tarrak]

Do we charge the elite replacements cost for over strength units? If not is charging the Elite reinforcements price enough to make it less of a game winning tactic?

Yes this is already the case.

Alternatively what about limiting the number of attacks to your experience level. You can over strength 0xp Stukas to 15 but it only attacks as a 10, but means if it takes damage you dont have to repair it in mission. It makes large conscript units possible but means they wont be lethal, just take more time to kill.

This may work. It's a less radical version of an idea someone already suggested before in the "Snowballing"-thread to no matter of over strength level always cap the amount of dice rolls to 10. This is a middle ground idea which may work i think.

[deducter]

Alternatively what about limiting the number of attacks to your experience level. You can over strength 0xp Stukas to 15 but it only attacks as a 10, but means if it takes damage you dont have to repair it in mission. It makes large conscript units possible but means they wont be lethal, just take more time to kill.

I did suggest something like this very early in the thread, but my suggestion was to cap all dice rolls at 10 regardless of experience. Your suggestion is an interesting compromise and could very well be the best way to balance Allied Corps content. However, I would still like the option to cap all dice rolls at 10 regardless of experience, as something in the game rules files.

Also, to Rudankort, I forgot to mention that it would be nice to have another parameter in the unit experience table: the experience gain rate. Currently, artillery/bombers gain experience very fast, but conversely infantry and tanks can feel a little slow sometimes. Now that units can be adjusted on an individual basis, this can be better balanced too.

[Rudankort]

So, finally some time to give some more feedback.

First a bug reminder, before I forget to mention it:
Razz mentioned that the camo trait still doesn't work correctly, and he's right. I gave it to a unit, and tested with a hotseat scenario. A normal unit can drive next to a unit that has 'camo' and it will be revealed, as it should. But at the start of next turn, even if the 'camo' unit remains stationary (and should remain visible), it is turned invisible again.

The unit that is standing next to it can even drive through the hex with the camo unit, and if I try to move into the hex with the 'camo' unit it appears after a little wait. Both these actions do not trigger an ambush as well. If I drive into it from several hexes away the ambush works normally.

Also, a while ago a spotting issue with the 'Undo' option was found, viewtopic.php?f=121&t=41219 but I could not reproduce it anymore in this 1.20beta. I didn't see it in the changelog, but is this issue fixed for this version?

Spotting issue was fixed in beta 1, yes. Camo trait will be fixed in beta 2. If there are more old bugs I forgot about, please by all means remind me about them.

[Rudankort]

Do we charge the elite replacements cost for over strength units? If not is charging the Elite reinforcements price enough to make it less of a game winning tactic?

Elite replacements cost is already charged, but actually I think that we need to make OS even more expensive. Right now I have in mind the following scheme:
- First point of OS costs the same as one point of "normal" elite replacemnets
- Second point of OS costs 1.5x from normal.
- Third point: 2x
- Fourth point: 2.5x
- Fifth point: 3x

So, every point of OS costs more than previous one, and all 5 points of OS costs the same as 1+1.5+2+2.5+3 = 10 points of "normal" elite replacements. In other words, you can buy one 15-strength or two 10-strength units for the same price. This scheme seems to better reflect the usefulness of OS (concentration of firepower in a single unit).

Alternatively what about limiting the number of attacks to your experience level. You can over strength 0xp Stukas to 15 but it only attacks as a 10, but means if it takes damage you dont have to repair it in mission. It makes large conscript units possible but means they wont be lethal, just take more time to kill.

This would probably work from balance point of view, but I don't want to make this mechanic too complicated. If the effects of OS change from point to point you buy, people will be confused.

[Longasc]

I actually think that limiting strength to "10" regardless if the unit has 12, 13, 15 or 20 (those conscripts in some East Front scenarios) strength points might solve some other problems with super high overstrength high xp units?

Would this really be too complicated for players/new players? The progressively increasing cost for overstrengthening is working towards making it unattractive as option, "overstrength" could become more an "reinforced" unit than a super attacker with increased attack strength and stay a viable method. For instance there are scenarios where few units block a narrow path.

Also don't forget reinforcements now come suppressed, an overstrengthened unit would remain operative longer.

[Rudankort]

We've been through this discussion before, and my opinion has not changed. I don't like the idea to turn OS from very effective to marginally useful mechanic, and this has a huge potential to break existing content. If OS disconnected from experience made the content easier, this change would make it harder, and this is a much bigger sin in my eyes.

Nor can we limit units like conscripts to 10 shots (this would break equipment balance), and I don't want to make OS units and conscripts working differently either.

Every asset you buy must be priced proportionally to its usefulness. It is clear that a 15-strength unit is much more useful than separate 10-strength and 5-strength units you could buy for the same money now. OS unit takes just one slot instead of two, and concentrated firepower means it can deal heavy damage without taking losses itself. This means that right now OS is underpriced. Hence my suggestion to increase the price. OS will not become less attractive, because it remains the ultimate way to make your core stronger. But you will need to think more carefully before applying it to your units, especially full 5 points of OS. And hopefully 15-strength units will become more rare. Units at 11-12-13 strength are not that bad for balance, but at 14-15 they become really powerful, so it is only fair that this last bit of power costs more.

[monkspider]

I don't like the idea of overstrength points not counting toward attack strength either. In all honesty, I didn't think the overstrength system needed to be completely revamped. I think the soft prestige cap along with increasingly expensive costs for each point of overstrength and maybe increased costs for in elite reinforcement costs in general should be sufficient. Assuming of course that the "not tying overstrength to experience" thing gets dropped. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here.

I think the higher costs in Deducter's mod work pretty well in at forcing you to overstrength strategically. I think higher costs, in conjunction with the prestige cap would help mitigate the "rich getting richer"effect, while not hurting players who are only playing moderately well. If some of Deducter's ideas regarding the reform units cheat being integrated into the game were implemented, you could help players who are struggling, and largely mitigate the "poor getting poorer"effect.

[Kamerer]

I don't like the idea of overstrength points not counting toward attack strength either. In all honesty, I didn't think the overstrength system needed to be completely revamped.

I also did not see a problem with the way it was before. As we have seen, disconnecting it unbalances PC and GC and so it can't be retro-actively applied.

Something I'm finding more problematic now that I have had more time to play are entrenchment and the new experience tables. I went back and played Allied Corps on "Rommel" and noticed some things which aren't as easily apparent on full or bonus prestige levels:

1) The entrenchment is really slowing things down and making it more costly. that's Ok, as long as scenario length and force structure (slots total) are balanced. But even infantry in the open that have been pre-positioned a while will take two or three artillery units' fire, a powerful armor unit's attack, and still be left in place. This is going to really unbalance earlier games. I really don't want to even think about playing stailingrad or Warsaw with this new rule and the same # of deployment slots and turn limit.

2) Experience gain: I was noticing some really weird experience gain vs. past levels. Armor was growing crazily fast, and air was faster (not a bad thing for air). But infantry was slower. I think artillery a little slower, too, but not enough to really say or make a difference. Overall, the rate felt in general comparable - e.g., a unit campaigned constantly from '40 to '44 was approaching 500 experience, though lower relatively for infantry and artillery.

[Rudankort]

1) The entrenchment is really slowing things down and making it more costly. that's Ok, as long as scenario length and force structure (slots total) are balanced. But even infantry in the open that have been pre-positioned a while will take two or three artillery units' fire, a powerful armor unit's attack, and still be left in place. This is going to really unbalance earlier games. I really don't want to even think about playing stailingrad or Warsaw with this new rule and the same # of deployment slots and turn limit.

It was kinda the idea of this change. A common complaint in PzC is that artillery is too powerful, so this change reduces its power. You can use the old "safe" way to deal with infantry, by bombarding it with artillery first, but this is slower now. Or you can attack with other units (your own infantry in close terrain, tanks in the open etc.) and deal with it faster, but at a cost of more losses. Also, this change makes it harder to fully suppress infantry and then attack it with tanks or anything else nearby. With new rules, some points of infantry remain intact, and they will deal some damage to attacking tank.

However, you may be right that the effect on urban maps might be too big. And also, with entrenchment becoming more important, we might need additional means of dealing with it. For example, certain units, like strategic bombers and pioneers, could reduce it by 2 points per attack, not one.

2) Experience gain: I was noticing some really weird experience gain vs. past levels. Armor was growing crazily fast, and air was faster (not a bad thing for air). But infantry was slower. I think artillery a little slower, too, but not enough to really say or make a difference. Overall, the rate felt in general comparable - e.g., a unit campaigned constantly from '40 to '44 was approaching 500 experience, though lower relatively for infantry and artillery.

I wonder why we are seeing this effect. Experience gain rates were not touched at all in 1.20 (even though there is a suggestion from deducter above to adjust them). Nor there are any changes to make the tanks more powerful, and thus killing more strength and earning more experience than before. So why armor is growing "crazily fast" now is not clear to me. The only explanation I see is, allied armor is inferior to axis one, it takes more losses in the encounters, and thus earns more experience. Then it is how it should be: inferior equipment gains exp faster, provided that it stays alive. That's how experience worked since ever.

[deducter]

1) The entrenchment is really slowing things down and making it more costly. that's Ok, as long as scenario length and force structure (slots total) are balanced. But even infantry in the open that have been pre-positioned a while will take two or three artillery units' fire, a powerful armor unit's attack, and still be left in place. This is going to really unbalance earlier games. I really don't want to even think about playing stailingrad or Warsaw with this new rule and the same # of deployment slots and turn limit.

Players are too used to completely or nearly completely suppressing infantry in any terrain before attacking, at least in SP. I very much dislike this mechanic, as it allows the player to complete missions like Stalingrad and Warsaw with minimal strength point losses. It is the currently the "normal" setup. However, historically urban warfare is always much, much heavier on casualties. What you're experiencing now is an readjustment towards more realistic numbers, and perhaps that is why it is shocking.

If you ever play multiplayer, you can get a taste of just how bloody urban warfare can be. It's impossible to completely suppress every unit with artillery and take zero losses against a competent player. Casualties tend to be much higher.

The new entrenchment system works quite well for entrenched infantry, so I very much like this change. However, it doesn't in any way address the powerful effect of defensive artillery against attacking infantry. You can still park a 13-strength Wurfrahmen behind almost any unit and make it nearly impervious to attack by infantry. I was wondering if there are any new thoughts on this.

[Tarrak]

The new entrenchment system works quite well for entrenched infantry, so I very much like this change. However, it doesn't in any way address the powerful effect of defensive artillery against attacking infantry. You can still park a 13-strength Wurfrahmen behind almost any unit and make it nearly impervious to attack by infantry. I was wondering if there are any new thoughts on this.

I agree the new entrenchments system is better then the old one but Kamerer is right it may cause problems in old urban warfare scenarios which are designed without it in mind.

Regarding the defensive artillery i think it is pretty realistic. Attacking into an artillery barrage really wasn't either good idea nor very effective. But if this mechanic is really deemed overpowered, i personally don't think so, then maybe just reduce the effect of artillery during defensive fire. Cutting the RoF or attack values of artillery during defensive fire by 1/3 or maybe even 1/2 should make defensive fire less lethal but still desirable. The exact numbers of course would need some number crunching and testing.

[deducter]

Regarding the defensive artillery i think it is pretty realistic.

Defensive artillery fire in clear terrain being devastating to attackers is absolutely realistic. However, artillery is much less effective in close terrain. At Stalingrad, Chuikov ordered his troops to engage in close quarters combat with the Germans to negate the German advantage in artillery and air support.

Furthermore, from a realism standpoint, it makes no sense that defensive artillery can just fire over and over again, there is no more ammo remaining. It takes time to set up proper preparative fire against entrenched defenders. For "defensive fire," bombarding staging points or of troops caught on the march, such actions required good reconnaissance and even some intuition. And rarely is artillery ordered to deliberately fire into friendly troops engaged with enemies in close combat.

But if this mechanic is really deemed overpowered, i personally don't think so, then maybe just reduce the effect of artillery during defensive fire. Cutting the RoF or attack values of artillery during defensive fire by 1/3 or maybe even 1/2 should make defensive fire less lethal but still desirable. The exact numbers of course would need some number crunching and testing.

A combination of high experience and overstrength makes defensive artillery overpowered against the AI. Against a human player, it won't work, since in multiplayer matches artillery don't start out with massive advantages, and humans can find ways of dealing with them. But the hapless AI only knows frontal attacks, and the best way to minimize losses is just to park artillery behind your units. Although this is optimal gameplay in the current system, it's far from interesting when every single one of your units must always be covered by artillery.

I conducted some simple tests to illustrate the effect of lowering defensive artillery fire ROF by a factor of 1/2 in the following thread
viewtopic.php?f=121&t=41675

[Longasc]

I hope someone has a Stalingrad scenarios savegame to test the effect of the new entrenchment rules on the urban warfare scenarios.

Regarding overstrength, so far I often refrained from overstrengthening units because after many scenarios those units were reduced <10 and the price to raise them up to 15 again was too much for my strained prestige budget so I didn't do it. But this was in Allied General and I didn't have access to often much better German unit types where this might have been a different matter.

[Tarrak]

I conducted some simple tests to illustrate the effect of lowering defensive artillery fire ROF by a factor of 1/2 in the following thread
viewtopic.php?f=121&t=41675

After having a look at your results it seems like cutting the RoF by half during defensive fire may be a good way to handle this problem. I just think this in conjunction with the new entrenchments system will make urban warfare scenarios even harder and probably lead to Stalingrad for example to be unwinnable.

[deducter]

I conducted some simple tests to illustrate the effect of lowering defensive artillery fire ROF by a factor of 1/2 in the following thread
viewtopic.php?f=121&t=41675

After having a look at your results it seems like cutting the RoF by half during defensive fire may be a good way to handle this problem. I just think this in conjunction with the new entrenchments system will make urban warfare scenarios even harder and probably lead to Stalingrad for example to be unwinnable.

I think most players would have a very hard time, but then again, I imagine some of the players currently struggling is because they don't use artillery optimally, so it may not impact those players that much. Rather, it's the players who have gotten used to the safety of defensive artillery who would have to adjust. I would imagine MP veterans would shrug and not be very bothered by it, as they are used to defensive artillery being good but not godly.

In Stalingrad, it would almost certainly force the player to reinforce, perhaps several times, and perhaps to bring along additional infantry in the core. And don't forget that Marginal Victory conditions are usually quite generous. It's just that MV is almost rarely even considered acceptable, and anything short of an easy DV is automatically considered hard content. Which begs the question, why bother even having MV as a victory condition?

Anyway, if you look the results, defensive artillery even with 1/2 ROF is still powerful, able to skew results from 7/6 to 8/4 and 9/3.

[Kamerer]

What you're experiencing now is an readjustment towards more realistic numbers, and perhaps that is why it is shocking.

My point is not about "realism," it's about keeping a balance of play in a tuned system. If new rules are retroactively applied to static scenarios, they may no longer be winnable under their fixed parameters.

I agree very much artillery is quite powerful as-is. This system feels much better in that regard, and in no way "shocking," but can it work in all the old scenarios? That's the point. I'm playing some old East campaigns to see. So far, no big deal, really. But I have not played any all-urban ones yet.

[Rudankort]

The first post has been updated for beta 2.

[wanwei]

After playing for couple of days, the ability to overstrength seems to balance the gameplay in the later stages especially when most of the units are having 2 or 3 levels of exp...

Can the overstrength feature be implemented as an option?