Panzer Corps Basics Guide or Wiki - UPDATE 29.08

[dragos]

The artillery near the VH is safe because the AI is programmed to capture VH as its top priority, and it will always immediately attack any adjacent unit regardless of combat odds.

Are you saying the AI is forced to attack an adjacent unit after taking a VH, even if the attack is suicidal? Like Cavalry attacking a Panzer IV in the open? Then this is a glitch and should be fixed in a patch.

[deducter]

The artillery near the VH is safe because the AI is programmed to capture VH as its top priority, and it will always immediately attack any adjacent unit regardless of combat odds.

Are you saying the AI is forced to attack an adjacent unit after taking a VH, even if the attack is suicidal? Like Cavalry attacking a Panzer IV in the open? Then this is a glitch and should be fixed in a patch.

Yes, this is correct. I also agree it should be fixed.

Edit: for more examples you can watch my Orel video where I abused this mechanic to wreck countless Russian tanks while taking minimal casualties.

[dragos]

Edit: for more examples you can watch my Orel video where I abused this mechanic to wreck countless Russian tanks while taking minimal casualties.

Not quite an honest way to beat AI

AA traps are ok, could happen to less cautious humans too, but this? No way!

[deducter]

While I agree this AI behavior should be changed, it's unfair to say such a move is akin to cheating just because the AI has this flaw. You can say the same thing about fighter traps, which people use all the time. A human player can move a plane and stop before attacking, but the AI does not do so. Before the patch the AI was horrible at artillery, so perhaps we as players should just fire our artillery after attacking too to compensate for the inadequacy of the AI? And the AI still moves up transports sometimes in front of tanks to be shot to pieces, so perhaps we as players should just mount up all our troops in trucks and send them in for the AI to kill? This line of reasoning gets increasingly absurd.

And sometimes it is difficult to not use this mechanic, because the tactical situation may call for capturing a VH, and sometimes for falling back afterwards. Just because I'm aware of this AI mechanic does not mean I should make poor moves to compensate for the AI's inadequacy.

[orlinos]

Note that in that Albert Canal picture the recon unit has a spotting of 4, which means orlinos either has a hero on his recon unit or he is showing that scenario using the GC Unit Revisions equipment file. In the standard eqp file all recon has a spotting of 3.

Yes, it's an old save using your mod - I've written about that fact in a footnote. The fact that I am also using a Stug (vannila only allows Sturmpanzers at this point) is telling. I think it's still alright, better spotting also gives a better view of what's going on in the battlefield.

Using a stuka as bait for a fighter trap is extremely risky. The loss of strength points, especially overstrength points, is rarely worth the damage to the AI's fighter. Especially in 1943, the Red Air Force field increasingly large number fighters, and they can and will shoot down Stukas after firing through the fighter escorts. I often like to escort a stuka with at least 2 fighters for this reason.

Yup, I've written about it too. From my experience, using Stuka-baits is only valid in 1939, maybe early 1940. And even than it is best to use two fighters to escort the plane - otherwise I use ground unit-traps only. After this period - well, I just got my Hs bomber half-killed in the ending scenario of '42.

I like your example, it's pretty drastic, considering how little units there are. I often try to do something like that myself, and it almost always gets me killed.

I have never yet been conscious of the AI going for the VH so blindly, although I should have known, remembering its past behaviour.

[dragos]

While I agree this AI behavior should be changed, it's unfair to say such a move is akin to cheating just because the AI has this flaw. You can say the same thing about fighter traps, which people use all the time. A human player can move a plane and stop before attacking, but the AI does not do so. Before the patch the AI was horrible at artillery, so perhaps we as players should just fire our artillery after attacking too to compensate for the inadequacy of the AI? And the AI still moves up transports sometimes in front of tanks to be shot to pieces, so perhaps we as players should just mount up all our troops in trucks and send them in for the AI to kill? This line of reasoning gets increasingly absurd.

And sometimes it is difficult to not use this mechanic, because the tactical situation may call for capturing a VH, and sometimes for falling back afterwards. Just because I'm aware of this AI mechanic does not mean I should make poor moves to compensate for the AI's inadequacy.

Who said anything about mimicking the stupid behavior of the AI? There is no way you can influence AI to use artillery properly. But let's say it knows how to use it properly, but due to a bug if the player can cause a certain situation, it starts to fire the artillery at the end of the turn. If the player knows this and makes repeated use of the situation, how does this qualify? Well, if it happens inadvertently, or the player is forced to create this situation, then it's OK. But provoking AI to behave aberrant with intention is an abuse. Some call it cheese

[orlinos]

Dragos: True, but it might be hard to distinguish between an abuse and "true" tactics. I often try luring the AI by displaying and innocent-looking unit (with heavy artillery behind it, to minimize the losses). If I execute it properly, AI often falls pray and ends its move one hex away from a heavy AT. Or in a forest. Cheese or not?

Unit clumps, allowing easy surrenders. Cheese or not? I do not even have to do anything, AI automatically creates such situations it in tight spaces.

The Arras scenario - AI repeatedly puts heavy tanks into bocage to the north. Place some Grenadiers in adjecent city and blast happily away! Cheese or not, since German tanks are rather inferior at this time?

[deducter]

I too agree this is abuse of the poor AI, although there are not too many maps where it is easy to take advantage of this mechanic. Orel is one of the worse, however, it is different to avoid on that map because I like to lure part of the AI's units over the river and destroy them. If i intentionally try not to use this mechanic, well, my lines would be much harder to manage. And I don't like to fight the AI right on the river because often damaged units simply retreat as opposed to being destroyed.

Anyway, in the screenshot I posted, what was I to do? I wanted to keep a force near that VH and be ready to attack immediately when the AI moves in. Yet I didn't want to put my tank in the city hex, since it would expose my lines too much (to cover my lines in that case would require me to expose an infantry on a clear hex, also a bad idea). So do I just arrange my forces in a sub-optimal manner to compensate for the AI's inadequacy?

Fighters traps are an analogous situation. In the AI improvement thread, I actually wanted fighter traps removed, but it did not seem like a popular idea.

I do want this mechanic to be removed, just like I would prefer fighter traps to be removed. I probably shouldn't be abusing it too much. But I'm not going to go out of my way to avoid it either.

[El_Condoro]

Single player vs AI is what is being discussed here so, if the game allows it, it's valid. If players don't like any game mechanic they can avoid it (as much as is possible). No-one is 'cheating' by using anything the game allows in my opinion. There are so many 'unrealistic' mechanics and assumptions in the game as is, one or two more won't hurt.

[Zhivago]

In the old PG, with multiplayer on the MPlayer network, the use of "barrage balloons" was a great way to create a fighter trap. You could buy a crap infantry unit and put it aloft in a transport plane and keep it stationary over whatever you were trying to protect. Obviously, below the "barrage balloon" you would have a couple of 88's, and maybe even a fighter unit adjacent to the "barrage balloon" so that the enemy had to commit at least two, or more aircraft to try and knock out the "barrage balloon", giving the defender a chance to do some damage to the attacking fighters over the trap. Of course, sometimes the old "air zone of control" rules from PG could come into effect. It was a nice way to create a spider web for enemy fighter planes.

[tankie]

Very much thanks for taking the time to write this. i need all the help I can get

[JimmyC]

I'm really late onto this post, but have to say its a great help. I played through the original a couple of years ago and just started getting into the grand campaigns. I never new of some of the special bonuses for infantry, etc. Really useful!

[Benlore]

Slitherine, Please put this on the FAQ/Common questions stickies page. I am a newbie, I have been trawling this forum for three months now for tips and haven't seen this one yet, it's a real gem. Thanks orlinos. Nice work.

[Musketeer]

Thx too!

[parmenio]

Slitherine, Please put this on the FAQ/Common questions stickies page. I am a newbie, I have been trawling this forum for three months now for tips and haven't seen this one yet, it's a real gem. Thanks orlinos. Nice work.

Ditto.

It's not quite three months but I do feel like I've bgeen doing a lot of trawling through old posts to find stuff out. As per Soft Cap info, I don't think this is on the FAQ stickie - it's also the second time I've "found" the thread (thanks to Musketeer) and I've been at work both times so can't download the PDF. This time I've emailed myself the link.

[Musketeer]

Panzer Corps seems like very direct and un-complex clone of PG, but when you dig deeper you are amazed by its purity and directness...

[mc261209]

Very Good

[Tagaziel]

I know I'm a bit late to the party - by about five years - but I've finally went and started a wiki for Panzer Corps.

http://panzercorps.gamepedia.com/Panzer_Corps_Wiki

I've currently uploaded profiles for all units (merging those with identical names to avoid endless suffixes, particularly when they had identical stats) and plan to organize the main pages for the unit classes, with general notes on weather, terrain, and so on and so forth to follow soon.

I'd also like to say that I love, love, love the devs for not burying and obfuscating the data deep inside the bowels of the game's files. Much less of a headache that way.