Gameplay changes in 1.20

[Rudankort]

I like to chip in and add my vote to Zhivago. I'm playing PG series for almost 20 years. It even beats Civilization to it and there is a reason for that. I read Deducter snowball thread and I agree with many things said about the snowball effect but I also don't care. Because I'm having fun, despite it was there since the beginning. It's very likely that in 20 years from now I'm going to pull out my dusty copy of PC from the shelve to finish an other playthrough of the Grand Campaign.
The game is already great as it is, and in my opinion it's difficult to improve what is already good, but every easy to make it worse. Change? Progression? Sure, but serenity is found in moderation.

So, are you enjoying the Allied Campaign less because of the changed rules? Or you do not care either way?

[Tarrak]

I think we are witnessing here the typical human behavior when it comes to changing something. We human are creatures of habit, we like to stick to stuff we are used to and are afraid of changes. I am guilty of it as well and i was a bit sceptic about the changes at first too but after trying them for a while i must say all of them, except the overstrength not being tied to experience, are really good. They fix elements that make the game just to easy in certain situations. Yes it takes power away from the player and we hate when someone takes our shiny toys away but in the long run it makes the game more challenging and fun. It is silly if you can go through almost full scenario of urban combat nearly without suffering any losses. It is silly when defensive artillery fire makes your unit totally immune to attacks, especially as the AI can't really deal with this problem. This points really do need addressing. Be open minded and give the changes a fair chance. Try them out without prejudice and you may discover you like them.

[Kamerer]

Back on entrenchment, I am finding now (beta 2), a few artillery barrages and the unsuppressed becomes 1 or 0, very different. i'm not sure what the change was technically, but the effect is to reward ample artillery use. Not a bad thing, just noticing the effect between beta 1 and beta 2 is quite a bit.

[Rudankort]

Back on entrenchment, I am finding now (beta 2), a few artillery barrages and the unsuppressed becomes 1 or 0, very different. i'm not sure what the change was technically, but the effect is to reward ample artillery use. Not a bad thing, just noticing the effect between beta 1 and beta 2 is quite a bit.

Technically, the change was exactly as described in the list. Suppression cap was disabled. Instead, the units get 2x bonus from entrenchment against ranged attacks.

In 1.13 we had:
+0.5*Entrenchment to defense, against infantry
+Entrenchment to defense, against all other units

In 1.20 beta 2 we additionally have:
+2*Entrenchment to defense, when bombarded by a ranged unit

So for example, a unit with entrenchment of 3 will get a +6 to defense when attacked by artillery (instead of +3 in 1.13). You can easily see this effect in combat log.

[borsook79]

I must say I really like most of the changes, a few comments:

1. Overstrength without experience is a great idea, but for balancing (i.e. anti-15 strength spamming) I'd suggest making it more expensive if a unit does not have enough stars. E.g. If a unit has 2 stars, first two points cost normally, but later the cost is doubled.

2. How about AI improvements? Still from time to AI first attacks a units and then bombards it with artillery.

3. The range penalty could take into account the given units range, those with longer range should have a smaller one for initial hexes, as it is rail artillery is going to lose a lot of its appeal.

4. Any chances of popular cheats like "reform units" and "chess" becoming options? Or at least separate cheats for on/off (e.g. "reform on" and "reform off") to avoid confusion whether or not a given cheat has been entered.

[Zhivago]

I'm not a casual player. I played Panzer General for years, and I've been playing Panzer Corps for the last two years. I own every Panzer Corps scenario that has been released. As such, you'll need to wait to hear from the masses after the game is released on D-Day. All of the new "tweaks" that have been added have made the game more difficult. I can roll with this, as I play on FM anyway. I think all of the complaints about artillery, OS, and what not, were BS anyway. I liked the system the way it was. I think if changes were to be incorporated in those areas, it could have been made optional, just like the weather, or fog of war, etc. You presumably want our feedback, so I am giving it to you.

Of course. Thanks for feedback. As I understand, you want the game to work the old way. Your vote is counted.

I am not trying to insult you. You love the game probably more than any of us, and have worked very hard on it. I am all for improvements in the game, and game play. I have made many suggestions over the years, like bridge engineers that can build and blow up bridges, combat engineers that can lay landmines as well as clear them; and also build entrenchments, etc. I agree with some of deducer's suggestions for strengthening infantry units as well. However, I dislike the changes to the OS system and the weakening of artillery.

I do think it is a good idea to consider making some of these new game-play changes standard for General, or FM, but not the lower difficulty levels. I just am concerned that the average, casual player trying out Allied Corps for the first time might get discouraged with some of the changes which have made the game more difficult.

Just my opinions, take them or leave them.

[deducter]

In the current system, rule changes always apply for all difficulties. I'm not so sure that's the best way to do things, but rather, certain rules should only take effect on certain difficulties.

I have no objections to this approach in general, but I have a question: which of the changes discussed in this topic you suggest to reserve for higher difficulties?

I think the overstrength system could be something that is tied to difficulty level. Just as an example, on Colonel, the player can overstrength at a constant cost per unit strength regardless of unit experience. On General, overstrength is tied to unit experience. And on FM, overstrength is tied to unit experience, and it costs progressively more per strength point. This creates three distinct rules that applies at three different difficulty levels.

I know us fans have asked a lot, and received a lot (replays are awesome!), but would it be possible to expand upon the current diff.pzdat file? I'm finding that the few generic parameters aren't as interesting a method of differentiating difficulty as the game rules are. So, for instance, if the diff.pzdat file contained a list of the parameters of what's in gamerules.pzdat, and each parameter can be individually set for each difficulty, that would work very well. It would really be more of a modding option, and more of a brute force solution, but it may be necessary given the current limitations of the game engine.

Or, alternatively, use the Civ4 approach of just having a whole bunch of options in an "advanced game options" selection. I also doubt such a menu would confuse new players, seeing as how Civ4, a game that sold millions of copies, had dozens upon dozens of options of customization.

Difficulty levels could definitely be more varied, with a lot of additional factors. For instance, in the scenario editor, there can be options for whether an event triggers based on difficulty. There might be more enemy units that only arrive at higher difficulties. Or, placement of enemies could be randomized, but only at higher difficulties. Or all those extra bonus units with heroes introduced in the new GC update might be disabled on the bonus difficulties (Rommel, Guderian, Manstein). If the issue is that there aren't enough difficulty levels, just create a few more difficulties between General and FM and add some extra nuance.

The problem with this approach is, we would need to test campaign on every difficulty separately, because these difficulty-specific triggers could have bugs in them, and so these bugs can only be detected when playing on this given difficulty. I think that more options which can be applied to any scenario or campaign would be much more helpful.

This is a good point, so perhaps it is unrealistic in the current game engine except as a modder's tool. However, something like this is may be worth thinking about for another expansion or a sequel.

Some of the most fun I've had in video games is when the "hard" mode of a playthrough triggers something new, rather than just seeing the same content but with bigger numbers for the AI and/or smaller numbers for the player.

[Rudankort]

I am not trying to insult you. You love the game probably more than any of us, and have worked very hard on it. I am all for improvements in the game, and game play. I have made many suggestions over the years, like bridge engineers that can build and blow up bridges, combat engineers that can lay landmines as well as clear them; and also build entrenchments, etc. I agree with some of deducer's suggestions for strengthening infantry units as well. However, I dislike the changes to the OS system and the weakening of artillery.

No worries. I have no problem with what you are saying, and if my reply sounded dry, it was not intended that way. I understand that, no matter what I do, some people will be left unhappy. Any change I make will have supporters and opponents. It is tricky to find the best course of action, and all opinions expressed in this thread are important. The more we can get the better.

Just as a side note, my goal with these changes was not to make the gameplay more difficult, but more balanced, fair and better overall. Thus, my goal was not to nerf artilery, but to make it not as trivial to use. For example, range penalty means that positioning artillery in the best way will require more thought. It becomes a trade off: closer to the enemy is more risk, but more firepower too.

Same thing with overstrength. It seems to be a no-brainer in 1.13, there are not many trade-offs and choices involved. I wanted people to apply it selectively, not automatically to every unit which can have it. At the same time, I always refused to nerf OS down as many people suggested. It remains a cool and powerful mechanic, just the way many people like it. If OS is too expensive and hard to get now - fine. There are ways to compensate this (e .g. give the player more prestige). But I do think that under new system OS is priced more fairly in relation to other game elements, and this, as I said, should result in better choices and trade-offs, which can only benefit the gameplay.

I do think it is a good idea to consider making some of these new game-play changes standard for General, or FM, but not the lower difficulty levels. I just am concerned that the average, casual player trying out Allied Corps for the first time might get discouraged with some of the changes which have made the game more difficult.

Yes, I understand. That's the reason why we had a separate registration for this beta, and not only veterans, but also newbies participate in it. Let's see what these guys have to say about the difficulty of the new campaign. We have added half of the new registered beta testers to beta 2, and the other half will join in beta 3.

[Rudankort]

Some of the most fun I've had in video games is when the "hard" mode of a playthrough triggers something new, rather than just seeing the same content but with bigger numbers for the AI and/or smaller numbers for the player.

I understand that making the game more difficult by using a few generic params giving the AI more prestige or more strength is rather boring. But using more parameters in difficulty settings? Hmm... not sure. Even now we see a lot of people unhappy with preset difficulties. Some people want Colonel, but with AI set to max level. Some want Rommel, but with even less prestige. Some want a hybrid between Rommel and Manstein. Etc. etc. If even more parameters are used to determine difficulty, I expect very few people to be happy with presets. People will consider this and that mechanic more balanced, more realistic or more fun, and they will want their custom combinations of rules, instead of standard ones. Then why bother and distribute new parameters and rules between difficulties? Isn't it better to just give the players a bunch of check boxes (in Advanced secton) and let them choose anything they want, and just leave the difficulties alone?

[deducter]

Some of the most fun I've had in video games is when the "hard" mode of a playthrough triggers something new, rather than just seeing the same content but with bigger numbers for the AI and/or smaller numbers for the player.

I understand that making the game more difficult by using a few generic params giving the AI more prestige or more strength is rather boring. But using more parameters in difficulty settings? Hmm... not sure. Even now we see a lot of people unhappy with preset difficulties. Some people want Colonel, but with AI set to max level. Some want Rommel, but with even less prestige. Some want a hybrid between Rommel and Manstein. Etc. etc. If even more parameters are used to determine difficulty, I expect very few people to be happy with presets. People will consider this and that mechanic more balanced, more realistic or more fun, and they will want their custom combinations of rules, instead of standard ones. Then why bother and distribute new parameters and rules between difficulties? Isn't it better to just give the players a bunch of check boxes (in Advanced secton) and let them choose anything they want, and just leave the difficulties alone?

An advanced options list with various checkboxes and perhaps some sliders for prestige/strength level is even better. It might also be worth thinking about being able to "save" a given set of options for modding purposes, so people players display their own custom difficulty settings.

[ThvN]

I’ve been a bit busy these past days so did not have much time to post, so I missed most of the discussion, still I may have a few cents to add about something that was mentioned a few pages back.

Pitching new ideas in threads and betas will attract the more enthusiastic people, who will be more eager to try things out and tinker with the rules to enhance their experience. I think it’s good that some players, like Zhivago, are simply happy with the way things are. And on the other hand, I appreciate deducter’s persistance in trying to get overpowered mechanisms nerfed; others just stop buying infantry and spend all their prestige on mobile artillery instead. But if it can be ‘fixed’ without diluting the experience for the average players, I’m all for it.

I think his idea is basically sound, although I have some other ways of executing it. Because I think his solution is too ‘invisible’ and will take a long time to get casual players to understand it just by playing the game. A good gamer will easily adjust I guess, but it may ‘look weird' to see a big gun fire multiple times and do very little damage. RoF is basically invisible to a casual player, all he sees is a big reduction in effect when he is attacked, while he may have been thinking his big gun, which has just wiped out 6 points of infantry and suppressed the rest, was sufficient to protect him in the AI's turn.

My approach, based on deducters ‘nerf the defensive artillery’ idea, would involve suppression. First defensive shot is on (nearly?) full power, but the artillery receives suppression in doing so. Next shot, it will have some suppression on it and will be less effective. And so on, to simulate the defenses being overwhelmed and unable to cope with multiple attacks. Suppression is shown in the UI, so it may be visible enough to the casual player to get an idea of what is happening. Unfortunately, this idea will still prevent the AI from making that first attack if the defense is too powerful, unlike deducters RoF reduction.

So if this is seen as a problem, deducters ‘cover’ idea can be useful, but again using a slightly different method. Instead of making a new ‘cover’ terrain variable, maybe give the attackers a defensive bonus vs. defensive artillery equal to the ‘base entrenchment level’ of the terrain, according to the existing system and values for different classes?
So infantry attacking through open terrain will still get blown away, but forests will give them some protection. Tanks, with their low base entrenchment level, will not really profit from this, so will barely be affected by this system.

And this is what I think is a good example of several people wanting to improve the gaming experience, but still seemingly disagree with each other (about the methods). This sort of discussion is very easy to observe in the snowball thread, basically almost everyone is in favour of toning it down but each proposed method to do it draws fundamental critisisms because of different logic. And what one person finds logical and reasonable might seem silly to others.

But I think it helps to have some solid discussions, because good critisism can only improve things. Showing an idea to other people who than will proceed to shoot it down is fine by me, as long as they are good shots. The best solutions are often subtle mixtures of ideas and concepts, while leaving the good bits the same. And that is why I like this forum so much, you can give your opinion, and not get shouted down. Many thanks for that.

[Zhivago]

I’ve been a bit busy these past days so did not have much time to post, so I missed most of the discussion, still I may have a few cents to add about something that was mentioned a few pages back.

Pitching new ideas in threads and betas will attract the more enthusiastic people, who will be more eager to try things out and tinker with the rules to enhance their experience. I think it’s good that some players, like Zhivago, are simply happy with the way things are. And on the other hand, I appreciate deducter’s persistance in trying to get overpowered mechanisms nerfed; others just stop buying infantry and spend all their prestige on mobile artillery instead. But if it can be ‘fixed’ without diluting the experience for the average players, I’m all for it.

I think his idea is basically sound, although I have some other ways of executing it. Because I think his solution is too ‘invisible’ and will take a long time to get casual players to understand it just by playing the game. A good gamer will easily adjust I guess, but it may ‘look weird' to see a big gun fire multiple times and do very little damage. RoF is basically invisible to a casual player, all he sees is a big reduction in effect when he is attacked, while he may have been thinking his big gun, which has just wiped out 6 points of infantry and suppressed the rest, was sufficient to protect him in the AI's turn.

My approach, based on deducters ‘nerf the defensive artillery’ idea, would involve suppression. First defensive shot is on (nearly?) full power, but the artillery receives suppression in doing so. Next shot, it will have some suppression on it and will be less effective. And so on, to simulate the defenses being overwhelmed and unable to cope with multiple attacks. Suppression is shown in the UI, so it may be visible enough to the casual player to get an idea of what is happening. Unfortunately, this idea will still prevent the AI from making that first attack if the defense is too powerful, unlike deducters RoF reduction.

So if this is seen as a problem, deducters ‘cover’ idea can be useful, but again using a slightly different method. Instead of making a new ‘cover’ terrain variable, maybe give the attackers a defensive bonus vs. defensive artillery equal to the ‘base entrenchment level’ of the terrain, according to the existing system and values for different classes?
So infantry attacking through open terrain will still get blown away, but forests will give them some protection. Tanks, with their low base entrenchment level, will not really profit from this, so will barely be affected by this system.

And this is what I think is a good example of several people wanting to improve the gaming experience, but still seemingly disagree with each other (about the methods). This sort of discussion is very easy to observe in the snowball thread, basically almost everyone is in favour of toning it down but each proposed method to do it draws fundamental critisisms because of different logic. And what one person finds logical and reasonable might seem silly to others.

But I think it helps to have some solid discussions, because good critisism can only improve things. Showing an idea to other people who than will proceed to shoot it down is fine by me, as long as they are good shots. The best solutions are often subtle mixtures of ideas and concepts, while leaving the good bits the same. And that is why I like this forum so much, you can give your opinion, and not get shouted down. Many thanks for that.

One note on artillery suppression. I know the thread between realism and actual game-play situations in Panzer Corps can be tenuous at times, and difficult to define. I think artillery should have a built in suppression factor BASED ON THEIR RELATIVE POWER. A smaller caliber artillery shell is not going to have the same suppression power as a larger shell. Also, rocket artillery (wurfs) have very high suppression power. If suppression effect could be tied to the power of the weapon, I think this would be a more common-sense way to address the one-size-fits-all artillery suppression issue that most people agree needs some tweaking.

Also, how about an infantry unit that is a mortar team? I know this kind of falls under the heavy weapons category, but it would be cool to have an infantry unit with the power to conduct a ranged attack.

[Tarrak]

One note on artillery suppression. I know the thread between realism and actual game-play situations in Panzer Corps can be tenuous at times, and difficult to define. I think artillery should have a built in suppression factor BASED ON THEIR RELATIVE POWER. A smaller caliber artillery shell is not going to have the same suppression power as a larger shell. Also, rocket artillery (wurfs) have very high suppression power. If suppression effect could be tied to the power of the weapon, I think this would be a more common-sense way to address the one-size-fits-all artillery suppression issue that most people agree needs some tweaking.

This is always the case already. Suppression power is directly tied to the attack value and bigger gun have higher attack values. The higher the attack value is the higher is the chance of suppression pr shot. Obviously RoF and dice roll play a bit of a role too but just check advanced combat prediction of two different guns vs same units and you will see the difference in the chance.

[Mariancdr]

It is good that we have a new evolving Panzer General ! Some things that can be improved, from my point of view:
- regarding the retreat of an unit -after it’s attacked by Art. for example and it’s turned yellow/red (suppressed)- if it’s attacked one more time by the enemy it will retreat probably opposite to the attacking force; usually any unit that suffered heavy casualties will usually retreat (almost always) in the direction of your own troops/your own line of defense/towards another allied unit, never will you retreat next to an enemy (as to receive a final blow)
- it will be a good idea to give a medal/hero/extra exp for the unit that determined an enemy unit to surrender or when the unit made an ambushed and has manage to destroy that unit
- the OS it’s ok (it is used in real live also) as long as the amount OS of the unit that is over the experience level doesn’t have the same effect when attacking (if you add more troops to an elite unit doesn’t mean that the add will have the same effect on the battlefield)
- regarding the range penalty for the artillery; it’s ok for the first time, let’s say it fires once, the second time it should be more efficient (if in the same position/over the same enemy) because it will use the infos from the first line Inf./tanks/etc. that will “direct the fire” over the enemy. Positioning on a key point (high ground for example) should also eliminate any penalty for the artillery
- It will be outstanding for the game to be able to blow up/build bridges, build mine fields/entrenched positions

[omegabet]

Nice proposal Kamerer!

Now it's harder to decide with so many UK vs. US units.

I workaround it by taking 6 screenshots and tab-out/tab-in to compare. Most times US won.

What application do you use to do that? I loaded Fraps a while back to do that, but it doesn't want to work on my computer (maybe it hates Chrome?). I need to find/learn to use a simple screenshot app.

Everything from GIMP to Irfan to Paint, even your mobile phone can help ^^

[zappel]

Are there any changes planned regarding the ability to capture a city/change the flag of a hex?

AI/UI improvement ideas (long list/post)

11. Artillery should be able to capture hexes. I think this is a relic from PG? It just doesn’t make much sense given that an artillery unit possess security elements and weapons, as well as honking-big guns. It just feels wrong. This is not a big deal to experienced players, but I think would help beginning players as well as be more authentic.

I think that both approaches have their advantages. "PG style rules" make the game actually richer. Thus, you have a choice to bypass enemy units which cannot take flags back, instead of decimating them, and this can certainly make difference in some scens. This game is all about unit classes, their roles and coordination. From this point of view, removing any difference between classes is not a good idea.

But I can see how existing system can be a bit confusing, even though we do explain it in tutorial.

I'll consider this point again for future games. But in PzC I intend to preserve status quo.

For me it is not only confusing, in some cases it is very strange. Think about units that can switch combat mode! The 8,8cm FlaK 36 can capture cities in AT-mode but not in AA-mode. StuG IV can capture cities in AT-mode but not in ART-mode. And allied units like M4 Sherman (105) or SU-122/SU-152/... have the same behaviour: capture cities in one mode and no ability to capture cities in the other mode. It is the same unit in both constellations but only in one mode a city can be captured. That ic confusing indeed. I suggest to change this functionality and make it available as an option in game-menu or game-ruleset. But I also believe if this option would be available everybody would use it, so it could be implemented in game for all.

...

For me it is not only confusing, in some cases it is very strange. Think about units that can switch combat mode!

Good point.

[Rudankort]

Are there any changes planned regarding the ability to capture a city/change the flag of a hex?

Not really. Existing status quo is documented in the game (I don't remember if it is in the tutorial, or Library, or Manual, but I remember we explained it). If we change the mechanic, we'll need to update the texts too, then update translations to other languages etc. A lot of work for a minor (if any) benefit. So, while I agree with your reasoning, PzC will probably remain as it is.

BTW, as of 1.13 this aspect is possible to mod, so capture flags behavior can be fixed in user mods.

[Kerensky]

At this point, I'd agree that AD and Arty not capturing flags is here to stay in PzC. In the future though...

[Kamerer]

Not necessarily a 1.20 question - But is air defense of ground units affected by suppression? It FEELS like it is not - e.g., I can attack a Pz. IV/J with tactical air and it seems I take the same damage whether it is full 10/10 (total strength/unsupp. strength) or 10/1 (1 unsuppressed strength). Frankly it seems to me ANY suppression on an AFV would neutralize any air defense - they button up under artillery fire and don't really go topside to man the MG. This has always kinda bugged me, but it seems I'm noticing now that suppression doesn't affect air defense. Or I'm getting some really bad rolls while playing Cobra...

[deducter]

What do players think about disable disembarking troops from trains on neutral or hostile city hexes? I know a new mp map requires on transporting in troops via trains, but I'm not so sure disallowing that would upset the balance of the map. I just find it very jarring to bliztkrieg via train.