Are attack values high enough?

[Vaughn]

When I started, it would regularly take 4-5 hits to drop every single enemy unit. I figured that I was using '39 equipment though and that would change. I'm now up to '43 and it is the same thing and there are just so many of them. This game might be better balanced for multiplayer, but single player is getting real tedious.

Is this intentional? Is this a feature?

Or perhaps I just don't have the patience for this type of game anymore.

[SineMora]

There's no unit in the game that requires that many hits to kill, assuming you're using the right tools for the job, e.g., infantry will die to practically anything in the open and tactical bombers will wreck heavy armour. To score a lot of kills you need more than good offensive stats, though -- you have to actually hit to inflict casualties, so accuracy has to be increased (through experience or recons), and no unit can ever inflict more kills than it has strength unless it benefits from Rapid Fire.

[Vaughn]

Yes there are. There are many units that take 4-5 hits.

Just this last round a bomber came in, I hit it with a 4 star AA during it's bombing run. Then during my turn, I hit it again with the AA, then I sent 3 fighters at it, finally finished it off with my fighter bomber. Most recent example. Happens all the time.

[Vaughn]

I'm not exaggerating nor imagining things. It is hard to bring things to zero strength in this game unless circumstances are wildly in your favor. Infantry vs armor in open terrain sort of thing.

[Kerensky]

The more you describe it, the more obvious the problems become. Air defense units do suppression damage, unless you have AA Veteran trait. Like artillery, this means you can pound a target all day and night and mostly only do suppression based damage to the target.

As for infantry attacking mid/late war armor in open and expecting results, well considering open terrain is the realm of vehicles and close terrain is the realm of infantry, I don't really see how this is a problem. Conscripts have no chance plinking their rifle rounds against a Panther tank on an open field. But even the lowly conscript can threaten a Panther in close terrain.

The wealth of unit purchase options comes with the usual drawback that comes with such extensive freedom of choice: the freedom to make the wrong choice.

So I'd take a good look at your roster of forces and how you're using them, and perhaps start to rethink some of it. With extreme focus on Soft Attack and Hard Attack values.

People say pioniere are OP, so many people are using all pioniere infantry... big mistake if they're fighting on a lot of open ground and not lurking through dense urban/close terrain environments.
Pioniere and engineer infantry are very much worse than all other infantry types at non-close terrain engagements.

[Kerensky]

I'd also guess there are other factors at play that are being overlooked too.

One thing that massively impacts aircraft performance is weather. No I don't mean rain or snow, I mean cloudy weather.
The distinction between sunny skies and cloudy weather is ultra subtle. But that ultra subtle effect reduces aircraft fighting performance by something like 50%. In fact it's exactly 50% accuracy reduction, which is huge killing power reduction.

I suspect you may also be still using Bf109s, who really fall behind on their air attack values as the war progresses, which is what justifies their low slow cost compared to FW190s.

Similar to cloudy weather massively slowing down aircraft kill rates, entrenchment is way more powerful at keeping ground forces alive longer than might seem proper. This is the biggest thing that artillery does. It doesn't outright kill targets, it does suppression damage and entrenchment damage.

[Vaughn]

OK. So it's a feature. Start being aware and counting how many hits things take, and how often they escape long enough to get reinforcements. It is a long slog.

Suppression sounded good to me in theory, but in practice I despise it. If a unit attacks and does 1 damage and 4 suppression, then a second unit attacks and does 1 damage and 4 suppression, you still have a near full strength unit the next turn to deal with. Rinse and repeat.

I'm not really having fun. Feels like a chore. I'll just go back to the original Panzer Corps. I always adored that one.

[Kerensky]

I think you're missing out on extra complexity and cool new mechanics but...
If the game is frustrating when it should be fun, perfectly fine to take a break.

It'll be here if you get back, and it'll be better with patches and addons when you do.

[MickMannock]

I suspect you may also be still using Bf109s, who really fall behind on their air attack values as the war progresses, which is what justifies their low slow cost compared to FW190s.

Regarding the Bf109, it's just not a late war thing (which I would be totally fine with, by the way). You have the same problem in the early parts of the war. In 1939-1940, the Bf109, along with the Spitfire, was the premier fighter plane in Europe. It wrecked havoc in Poland and France in the early war. Despite that, you need atleast 3 fighters (or two 109's and a 110) to bring down any enemy fighter or bomber you face in Poland and France. Doesn't matter if it's an old biplane you're up against or a Blenheim (which famously got slaughtered in France by the 109's). As far as I've gathered, this is a design choice aimed at a blanced MP and being a pure single player myself, can't say I enjoy this design choice very much.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

You have the same problem in the early parts of the war. In 1939-1940, the Bf109, along with the Spitfire, was the premier fighter plane in Europe. It wrecked havoc in Poland and France in the early war. Despite that, you need atleast 3 fighters (or two 109's and a 110) to bring down any enemy fighter or bomber you face in Poland and France. Doesn't matter if it's an old biplane you're up against or a Blenheim (which famously got slaughtered in France by the 109's). As far as I've gathered, this is a design choice aimed at a blanced MP and being a pure single player myself, can't say I enjoy this design choice very much.

The germans lost 285 aircraft during the invasion of Poland plus 280 damaged while the poles lost 333 aircraft. Doesn't seem so superior.

[ErissN6]

So it's a feature. Start being aware and counting how many hits things take, and how often they escape long enough to get reinforcements. It is a long slog. Feels like a chore. I'll just go back to the original Panzer Corps.

Nope it's not a feature, it's 2 things:
. the game has more features, but with 3D it shows them badly, so we don't understand what happens (like cloudy weather and it's tiny icon in a corner of the screen)
. if you fight WW1 style, yes you can't be fast enough in destruction

If a unit attacks and does 1 damage and 4 suppression, then a second unit attacks and does 1 damage and 4 suppression, you still have a near full strength unit the next turn to deal with.

As I said, you have to fight WW2 style, using encirclments: hence next turn the unit will still be with 8 supressions...

[comradep]

There's no unit in the game that requires that many hits to kill, assuming you're using the right tools for the job, e.g., infantry will die to practically anything in the open and tactical bombers will wreck heavy armour. To score a lot of kills you need more than good offensive stats, though -- you have to actually hit to inflict casualties, so accuracy has to be increased (through experience or recons), and no unit can ever inflict more kills than it has strength unless it benefits from Rapid Fire.

Looks like this is the first thing we disagree on. Compared to the original and SSI games, combat is not particularly deadly in PC2. It's more like Order of Battle, without the extremely annoying "units will nearly always have 1 strength point left after being attacked."

Tactical bombers do, on average, about 3 damage to enemy medium tanks. That means it takes 4 hits to kill them. If they also do 3 damage to infantry, it takes 5 hits to kill them. Tactical bombers no longer being as effective as an orbital laser is fine, but it does take more time to kill the enemy.

Infantry being overstrength by default makes them much more sturdy than in earlier games. Even in the open, you need nearly full strength light/medium tanks to kill infantry in 3 hits.

If anything, I feel infantry is a bit too strong currently: they're nearly impossible to suppress in one turn, and at higher difficulties they will still do "chip damage" with 2 unsuppressed steps due to their accuracy bonus and the combat system not scaling very well when it comes to low strength point combat.

The inability to suppress infantry is quickly becoming my main pet peeve, as combined with base entrenchment and a combat system that targets suppressed steps instead of unsuppressed steps (another mechanic that I'm not fond of), it can make dealing with infantry rather costly. It's as if infantry can only be one of two extremes in games like this: pushovers or men of steel.

People say pioniere are OP, so many people are using all pioniere infantry... big mistake if they're fighting on a lot of open ground and not lurking through dense urban/close terrain environments.
Pioniere and engineer infantry are very much worse than all other infantry types at non-close terrain engagements.

In PC2, Pioniere are much weaker than in previous games. They might be "OP" with heroes, any unit can be OP with heroes, but vanilla Pioniere are vulnerable and frail.

I don't use mostly Pioniere because they're good, I use mostly Pioniere because other infantry can't deal with infantry in non-clear hexes due to base entrenchment and takes too many losses.

Note that all of this is based on Generalissimus. It could be that these problems are less of an issue without the AI receiving a +20% accuracy bonus, but that's what makes combat on Generalissimus costly.

The germans lost 285 aircraft during the invasion of Poland plus 280 damaged while the poles lost 333 aircraft. Doesn't seem so superior.

The game only represents air-to-air combat and AA, not accidents or other losses. Only a limited amount of the Luftwaffe losses in Poland and the Low Countries were caused by enemy aircraft. The Luftwaffe lost over 300 aircraft in the Netherlands, most of which were not shot down by the tiny Dutch air force. Compared to earlier games, due to more generic stats Bf 109E performance is underwhelming.

[MickMannock]

You have the same problem in the early parts of the war. In 1939-1940, the Bf109, along with the Spitfire, was the premier fighter plane in Europe. It wrecked havoc in Poland and France in the early war. Despite that, you need atleast 3 fighters (or two 109's and a 110) to bring down any enemy fighter or bomber you face in Poland and France. Doesn't matter if it's an old biplane you're up against or a Blenheim (which famously got slaughtered in France by the 109's). As far as I've gathered, this is a design choice aimed at a blanced MP and being a pure single player myself, can't say I enjoy this design choice very much.

The germans lost 285 aircraft during the invasion of Poland plus 280 damaged while the poles lost 333 aircraft. Doesn't seem so superior.

But that is all Luftwaffe losses during the Polish campaign, including the bombers.

The Luftwaffe themselves claimed 67 109's lost during the Polish campaign due to all causes (aerial combat, crashes and AA).

It is true that parts of the Luftwaffe fighter piloits were still green and learning in those early stages, but the tactical experience from Spain and better machines made them a superior force to any nation in those early stages of the war (the exception being the battle over England of course, a type of war the Luftwaffe was not designed to fight).

I'd consider your point a swing and a miss.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

But that is all Luftwaffe losses during the Polish campaign, including the bombers.

The Luftwaffe themselves claimed 67 109's lost during the Polish campaign due to all causes (aerial combat, crashes and AA).

It is true that parts of the Luftwaffe fighter piloits were still green and learning in those early stages, but the tactical experience from Spain and better machines made them a superior force to any nation in those early stages of the war (the exception being the battle over England of course, a type of war the Luftwaffe was not designed to fight).

I'd consider your point is a swing and a miss.

Yeah, but the same goes for the polish airforce. According to wikipedia (haven't yet found a reliable primary source that lists all planes lost during the invasion of poland sorted by types) only 116 of the destroyed polish planes were fighters.
Sure, the german air force was superior, but I would say it is not as superior as you would make it out to be.

[MickMannock]

Yeah, but the same goes for the polish airforce. According to wikipedia (haven't yet found a reliable primary source that lists all planes lost during the invasion of poland sorted by types) only 116 of the destroyed polish planes were fighters.
Sure, the german air force was superior, but I would say it is not as superior as you would make it out to be.

If we exclude the battle over England and the North African campaign, Germany had complete air superiority in all its campaigns leading up to Barbarossa. My gaming experience of PG/PC1 is exactly that, but playing PC2 it's quite the opposite, unless I completely overemphasize buying 109's and 110's (which, with the core system, makes my ground elements a lot weaker, taking away a lot of the "Blitzkrieg feel").

My point is that the game, and I mean specifically the air components, seems to have been changed to have a better balance in multiplayer, atleast if you compare the game to PG/PC1. It might be that the developers thought the combat discrepancies were too great in PG/PC1 and that this is an attempt to rectify it in PC2, but to me it's a very jarring difference at the moment which alters the gaming experience in regards to the games original formula.

[panzeh]

As long as you're fighting close to your own airfields, you will kill enemy aircraft very quickly. The 109 is, in fact, far superior to anything you'll fight in '39-40. Expecting one or two-shots on enemy planes when you're chasing them all the way across the map is a bit much, I think.

[Horseman]

It's worth noting - that in my campaign so far (just finished Sevastapol) I am winning the air war with my trusty 109s.

At the start of each scenario I am at worst in air parity and able to win local superiority which transitions to over all air superiority and finishes with total air supremacy.

So even though my fighters don't perform as well as they did in PG and PC1 (where they'd 1 or 2 shot most enemy planes) they are still doing what they did historically which is dominate the skies.

Edit: As someone mentioned the closer to your own and further from enemy airfields you can fight the better. And that matches the reality. Think of the battle of Britain. Reality there is the UK had a massive advantage, the Luftwaffe fighters literally only had enough fuel for a couple of mins worth of dog fighting before they had to run for home. The RAF obviously had fewer issues in that regard which gave them a pretty decent edge. In reality the spitfires of the day didn't outclass the 109's massively in a fair fight but here they dominated.

[Plaid]

109's are very cheap both in slots and prestige.
Consider overstrength, if you want more kills per attack.

Personally I don't mind AI air units surviving and retreating. They burn prestige and exp for repairs (AI seems to use only normal replacements) and you can easily kill them later. And in many early scenarios AI doesn't even have prestige for repairs.

[panzeh]

It's worth noting - that in my campaign so far (just finished Sevastapol) I am winning the air war with my trusty 109s.

At the start of each scenario I am at worst in air parity and able to win local superiority which transitions to over all air superiority and finishes with total air supremacy.

So even though my fighters don't perform as well as they did in PG and PC1 (where they'd 1 or 2 shot most enemy planes) they are still doing what they did historically which is dominate the skies.

Yeah, I think the idea with airpower is you're supposed to gradually wear things down rather than get big flashy kills. You can also slow them down by taking the airfields they're on(this uses up their movment action on the next turn and prevents replacement).

There's a definite difference in quality between fighters. I'm in North Africa using the Soviet roster and the I-16 gets absolutely shredded by Spitfires.

[Horseman]

It's worth noting - that in my campaign so far (just finished Sevastapol) I am winning the air war with my trusty 109s.

At the start of each scenario I am at worst in air parity and able to win local superiority which transitions to over all air superiority and finishes with total air supremacy.

So even though my fighters don't perform as well as they did in PG and PC1 (where they'd 1 or 2 shot most enemy planes) they are still doing what they did historically which is dominate the skies.

Yeah, I think the idea with airpower is you're supposed to gradually wear things down rather than get big flashy kills. You can also slow them down by taking the airfields they're on(this uses up their movment action on the next turn and prevents replacement).

There's a definite difference in quality between fighters. I'm in North Africa using the Soviet roster and the I-16 gets absolutely shredded by Spitfires.

Sounds like fun (using Soviet roster in Africa!)

I still see a lot of 4/5/6 kills for me V 1/2 for the enemy, even when I'm fighting over their airfields. It's a far cry from the 8v0 I'm used to in PC but still showing I have the better planes.