The slot system

[Horseman]

When I first read about the a lot system PC2 was going to use I was a little sceptical. But I figured that if different unit types had different costs it might make some much under used classes viable. (I was assuming it would be slot cost bases on class)

When I got the game and started playing and realised it was depending on individual units and not just the unit class I was a little taken back and not convinced.

As I played more and more I found it growing on me. No longer was my core made up only of the latest tech, No longer could I mount all my infantry in half tracks (well i could but there was a real trade off and not just prestige to consider) I could have all the best and 15 str units across the board but that meant I'd have fewer units, so many choices!

Now after completing along the Volga I've gained a fair amount of core slots and then as I always do, I look at my upgrade choices......

I Have 6 infantry (so 6 slots needed to upgrade them all to the 43 version)
6 Tanks (4 are IVG and 2 are IIIM) I could potentially use 8 slots here if I wanted all Tigers!
Both my StuG AT can have an upgrade for a slot cost each. And both my recon.
Two out of my four fighters are still 109's so that's potentially 4 more slots.
Finally my 110 can be upgraded as can my start bomber!

I don't have that many available slots, choices choices!

It's fair to say that I love the new system and really makes lots of different units relevant compared to in PC1.

How are other players finding the slot system?

[ErissN6]

I've gained a fair amount of core slots and then as I always do, I look at my upgrade choices... I don't have that many available slots, choices choices!
I Have 6 infantry (so 6 slots needed to upgrade them all to the 43 version)
6 Tanks (4 are IVG and 2 are IIIM) I could potentially use 8 slots here if I wanted all Tigers!
Both my StuG AT can have an upgrade for a slot cost each. And both my recon.
Two out of my four fighters are still 109's so that's potentially 4 more slots.
Finally my 110 can be upgraded as can my start bomber!

For me, priority is fighters, then reco.

the new system makes lots of different units relevant compared to in PC1.
How are other players finding the slot system?

Sure far better than PC1. However, old PG3D system was good too.
Please devs, do a remake of PG3D, but with an unzoomed map (maybe here, contrary to PC2, their 3D was readable because it do was zoomed?), and a better strategical map.

[Lokesz]

I think it is a great system. With the traits of the general it becomes even more interesting. I have chosen a 'panzer general' and went to Barbarossa with a horde of panzer III's that only count for 2 cores. And then there is the flakvierling anti air that cost only 1 core and can be very effective against swarms of conscripts.

[Horseman]

For me, priority is fighters, then reco.

Fighters were for me until now - with fw190's now costing an extra 2 slots over the 109's I think I'll leave it at 2 of each for now. That might change when/if i start fighting the Brits and USA. My first PC1 campaign I never used fw190's to save prestige. Went from 109's to jets!

It's with tanks I find it most interesting. If this were PC1 I'd almost certainly have 3 Tigers and 3 PzIVG's (which would then become Panthers). I almost certainly have at least some PzIII's I expect.

[Generalex]

I really like the basic idea of core slot points. However I would appreciate if they would be much more granular as was already discussed in another thread.

[Horseman]

I really like the basic idea of core slot points. However I would appreciate if they would be much more granular as was already discussed in another thread.

Yeah I agree to an extent. As an example I never used (and am unlikely to use) the PzIIIJ1 as an extra slot over the J version didn't seem worth it. And there's examples of this throughout. On the other hand the only fix wpuld be to have either decimals (which I wouldn't want to have) or extend the range of costs which seems a lot of work!

[egrofik]

mmh, picked the traits Panzer General and Infantry General and no overstrength.
I think I have enough forces...
In some scenarios like Anzio a little bit to much of them.

[econ21]

It's a good system, but could use some tweaking. The example given in another thread of a T-34/40 compared to a T-34/41 comes to mind, as one where the extra core slot doesn't seem warranted - either in gameplay or history. I don't think it is a problem for minor upgrades not to cost an extra slot. I suspect if the upgrades were minor, they would have been rolled out pretty much across the board. But I think it is good to try to make it optimal not to upgrade all your fighters to Fw-190s and all your tanks to cats. I am not quite sure how to model this, but presumably in real life, the point was that tweaks to existing equipment cost (e.g. trying to make Me109, PzIII and PzIV chasis still have a role) cost much less than abandoning that equipment and building completely new stuff from scratch. I guess that is easier to model with prestige than core slots (rather like in Pc1, it should cost full price to upgrade outside of a model, but only the incremental cost to upgrade the existing model).

I hadn't realised the 43 upgrades to infantry cost a slot. That's an interesting one. Historically, it seems the Panzerfausts etc did make a big difference to infantry effectiveness against armour, but in PzC2 I doubt that will be true. As even without it, infantry slaughters the heaviest tank in a city. From a pure gameplay one, those might be where I save some core slots. In these PG games, it always seems that Focke Wulfs and big cats are worth sacrificing for.

[Kerensky]

I definitely see the new slot system as a positive.

There's no justification of 10 strength 1 slot infantry fighting against 10 strength 1 slot King Tiger. That was beyond the ability of a single system to balance (prestige).

But in the same way prestige isn't a direct translation to Reichmarks, I don't think slots is a direct translation into any one tangible cost element. Some slot justification just comes from natural progression of the war. Bigger units obviously need more slots because they need more support, but it could be that more advanced units also take more slots because the availability of materials is lower.

I'm skeptical that more granularity will be helpful though. I think inflating the numbers would dramatically increase how confusing it is to manage 250 slots over 100 slots. Or 750 slots instead of 250 slots. Might be suitable for mods, but I'm not so sure for base game.

[Horseman]

I look at the slot cost as a sort of supply/support cost.

Tigers are more slots the PzIVG's because they use more fuel (supply) and require more maintenance (support).

I agree I wouldn't want to see it change.

Yes a IIIJ1 is not (imo) worth an extra slot compared to a IIIJ. But then my PzIII's have been the same slot cost for ages and there's always going to be an odd cut off here and there that's arguably not worth it (the T34 example being another one)

[Horseman]

I hadn't realised the 43 upgrades to infantry cost a slot. That's an interesting one. Historically, it seems the Panzerfausts etc did make a big difference to infantry effectiveness against armour, but in PzC2 I doubt that will be true. As even without it, infantry slaughters the heaviest tank in a city. From a pure gameplay one, those might be where I save some core slots. In these PG games, it always seems that Focke Wulfs and big cats are worth sacrificing for.

It's not just HA on inf though

They all seem to get +2SA, +4HA, +2GD and +2CD (at least the Pionieres, Greanadiers and Wehr inf do)

That's a pretty decent upgrade I think for 1 extra core slot.

[SineMora]

As I explained in the thread on slot costs, I find the current solution unsatisfactory as it relegates many units to being used solely as props for the AI, because no one will ever field them due to their poor cost-performance ratio. There are other problems with this, such as how the overstrenghten mechanic interacts with numbers being rounded up or down and the way some traits, particularly Infantry and Panzer General, provide an unfortunate shift in balance, e.g., because of rounding the latter will lower the base cost of a Tiger from 7 to 5, which effectively renders most medium German armour meaningless (other than for roleplay reason, why would you field a Panzer IV when you can have a Tiger for 1 slot more).

[Kerensky]

As I explained in the thread on slot costs, I find the current solution unsatisfactory as it relegates many units to being used solely as props for the AI, because no one will ever field them due to their poor cost-performance ratio. There are other problems with this, such as how the overstrenghten mechanic interacts with numbers being rounded up or down and the way some traits, particularly Infantry and Panzer General, provide an unfortunate shift in balance, e.g., because of rounding the latter will lower the base cost of a Tiger from 7 to 5, which effectively renders most medium German armour meaningless (other than for roleplay reason, why would you field a Panzer IV when you can have a Tiger for 1 slot more).

I dunno. I still like to keep Panzer IV around even after I get Tigers.

Panzer IV is a very nice vehicle for anti-soft duties. The perfect unit to fill out my roster with a few 10 strength tanks.
Meanwhile, my Panthers and Tigers are always spearhead units. The few I have are always OS to various degrees, and packing heroes as I have them.

[SineMora]

I dunno. I still like to keep Panzer IV around even after I get Tigers.

Panzer IV is a very nice vehicle for anti-soft duties. The perfect unit to fill out my roster with a few 10 strength tanks.
Meanwhile, my Panthers and Tigers are always spearhead units. The few I have are always OS to various degrees, and packing heroes as I have them.

Panzer IVs don't even benefit from Rapid Fire, so I question their value to use against soft targets. It sounds like a waste of resources when you have access to Recons that are not only faster but have phased movement, superior visibility and offer accuracy bonuses to nearby units. If you're using Panzer General I find your use of them puzzling. After '43 Infantry is more resilient, but then so are recons.

We're going OT now, though. As it stands, the slot system is a great addition to PzC, but it's in need of a revamp.

[Kerensky]

To clarify.

A anti-soft unit that doesn't require escort or protection from medium enemy armor (recon car gets smashed) and operates in clear terrain (no infantry).

[adiekmann]

At the beginning and during the demo period for pre-orders, I thought I would end up with a more diverse army. But instead, I'm at the East Coast of USA and I have found myself with a relatively small but over-powered core.

I have:

6 Infantry (one is a Bridge Pioniere usually in reserve unless I need him; 4 Pioniere, 1 Grenadier)
4 Panzers (Panther A, Panther G, Tiger I, Tiger II)
2 Self-propelled PzJgs (Elefant and StuG IIIF/8)
1 Recon
3 Artillerie (10.5cm, 15 cm, and 21 cm)
2 FlaK 88mm (I have AA vetern)
2 fighters (Fw 190)
1 Stuka
1 Strat bomber (with lethal attack hero; makes them murderous especially on soft targets)

From early on I planned to add more of this or that unit, but the core slot system forces you to make tough decisions, and you can see I almost unintentionally found my way to a small army, if uber units. All are OS except for the Inf since at 15 base they seem to be already in my mind. In some maps, this small number of units proved challenging to cover all sectors of the map (like Moscow '43). But where I did concentrate my strength they proved unstoppable. I have used the reserve system to place units when I ran out of core slots which proved very helpful. So even though I had my StuG III and Bridge Engineers for long time, they are only 2 star because there are many battles that they did not participate in.

I tried to use more Wehr Inf and grenadiers, but eventually I was forced to upgrade most of them to Pioniere. That has been brought up already in other threads.

By and large it works, but I wonder what other people's experience is. How have you decided to make your core army?

[gokkel]

My core in the East Coast USA mission in my first completed campaign (only on General difficulty) was like this:

5 Infantry (3x Pioniere,2x Gebirgsjäger)
5 Tanks (1x Flammpanzer 38(t), 2x Panther G, 2x Tiger II)
2 Recon (Puma, but I actually noticed I prefer the 234/1 because of Rapid Fire)
2 AT (1x Hetzer, 1x Jagdpanther)
6 Artillery (1x Gustav, 1x 17cm, 1x Hummel, 1x StuH 42, 2x Wespe)
3 AA (2x 88mm, 1x Möbelwagen)
3 Fighters (1x Me262, 2x FW 190D-9)
2 Tactical Bombers (FW 190G)
2 Strat Bombers (1x Ju 188A, 1x Ta 400)

In reserve I had these forces still:

5 Infantry (0-1 Star experience, only needed so many for missions like Stalingrad)
1 Bridge vehicle (rarely used)
1 AA
2 Fighers (I brought more for Sea Lion)
1 Recon Plane (used in most missions)
1 Strat Bomber (again, Sea Lion)

So quite a bit bigger force; I used overstrength very sparingly in that playthrough, and I would do some decisions differently now for sure.

My current playthrough on Field Marshal looks very different because this time I chose to go to Africa and I find myself relying much less on infantry (more heavy on Grenadiere because they have the same speed as Wehrmacht in the desert, and the village tiles offer less entrenchment than the cities in Europe making Pioniere less necessary) and artillery having reached the Middle East so far (only 3 artillery pieces currently), but instead on stronger Tank and AT forces and especially my overstrengthened tactical bombers. I also only use one Strategic Bomber now which often ends in the reserve.