Looking ahead to Patch 5

[Horseman]

Thinking about garrison units and how to implement them without them being used to flood the map......

How about they have a movement of 0? They could still be railed around but otherwise would be stuck in place.

[Retributarr]

"Horseman" said:
"How about they have a movement of 0? They could still be railed around but otherwise would be stuck in place".

Your suggestion makes sense!. Now for the 'Down-Side'. This now makes it possible to emplace as many 'Garrison-Units' as you please... these unlimited Garrison placements... now create a 'Sea' of 'speed-bumps'... for the 'Opposition'. Thereby... drastically impeding or slowing down the Game to a crawl'... and in so doing... seriously destabilizing the game.

[Kerensky]

Movement 0 would cause all kinds of problems, like not being able to retreat.

Maybe movement 1 instead. That's slow enough to not be useful... but then people can just get around low mobility by attaching transport. Like cheap transport like horse drawn.

[Horseman]

Movement 0 would cause all kinds of problems, like not being able to retreat.

Maybe movement 1 instead. That's slow enough to not be useful... but then people can just get around low mobility by attaching transport. Like cheap transport like horse drawn.

What if they can't have any organic transport?

On the other hand no retreat isn't necessarily a bad thing. Remember from a gameplay perspective we're just looking for something that can stop an easy capture of an undefended hex. They don't need to be more than "better than nothing" in combat

[gokkel]

Disclaimer - I'm not into MP so am writing from a SP / Campaigner perspective:

What are the options for making PaKs more viable compared with self-propelled AT? They were the backbone of German anti-tank capability on the Eastern Front, not the limited supplies of non-StuG panzerjaegers.

Admittedly, I understand the game is "Panzer Corps" and not "Infanterie Division simulator"

I already use the PaKs in some scenarios over the self-propelled ones, namely the PaK 5cm and 7.5cm. There are a few scenarios where they offer a bit more firepower than the available self-propelled counterparts and the way I use them (behind my other units to provide support fire) they do their job well. They move less tiles but often you should approach carefully anyway. They are also more vulnerable to artillery but in most of those scenarios that is only a minor inconvenience.

Once the self-propelled guns have equal or even better firepower there is no reason to keep using them though, so they could definitely need some help to make them more attractive.

[BaronVonWalrus]

Disclaimer - I'm not into MP so am writing from a SP / Campaigner perspective:

What are the options for making PaKs more viable compared with self-propelled AT? They were the backbone of German anti-tank capability on the Eastern Front, not the limited supplies of non-StuG panzerjaegers.

Admittedly, I understand the game is "Panzer Corps" and not "Infanterie Division simulator"

Easy answer, new player character trait: Artillery Officer. Towed units (AT/AD/Arty) have reduced slot cost.

That could encourage more towed unit usage for some players and playstyles.

Long answer:

The game is fundamentally stacked against towed units by it's very nature. You are almost always on the offensive, you are generally always moving units around, you pretty much never hold a static position for an extended period of time.
Towed units doing short drive dismount is a huge boon to making them more appealing, but it's still not really enough.

So some new scenario design might help address the issue. It's funny how useful a Pak36 is when your only alternative option is... nothing, or a Panzer I. Sure as heck want a Pak 36 in this case. You'll see what that's about soon.

You tease

I like the sound of that trait and will likely pick it up on my 2nd campaign and I agree that the "short drive dismount" for towed guns has been a significant addition to the game.

As to your point in your other reply, I really like the flexibility offered by medium quality choices as they let me field a lot of units which in turn allows me to pursue independent objectives and not just "zerg" around the map with a doomstack of the most expensive units prestige can buy.

[PoorOldSpike]

Replacing a stopgap board flooding unit with a different board flooding unit... serves no real purpose.
A new garrison unit shouldn't just be something you can flood a map with, the same as bridge engineers should probably stick to bridge making duties (increasing their slot cost is harmful to their campaign function)

I never flood the map with Bridger units because I'd much rather use valuable slots to buy proper combat units.
The only time I buy Bridgers is in emergencies, usually when an enemy recon unit wriggles through my front line and I HAVE to buy a Bridger or two to deploy in empty cities and objectives to stop the recon driving in there unopposed.
At the moment, there's NO DEFENCE against an enemy recon unit that breaks into our rear area except to try to throw Bridgers in his way, and unrealistically withdraw a bunch of our valuable combat units from the front line to go hunt him down, which could take a lot of time because recons can wriggle through our ZOCS.

Later when I've killed the recon and the emergency is over, I disband the Bridgers because they're no longer needed and I want to get their slots back.
All I'm saying is that it'd look more realistic if there was a small cheap "Security" unit we could buy in emergency situations instead of Bridgers, they could cost the same as Bridgers prestige and slot-wise, but have combat values slightly higher than Bridgers and we could disband them after they've done their job.
That way people would always buy Secs instead of Bridgers for the same price.

All recons must die!..

[a432]

Guys lets shift the discussion of how to make a garrison unit away from unit details like movement, cost, and core slots to the real problem : supply mechanics. We already know how to make a historical and proper garrison unit. The only problem is this games terrible supply mechanics. Because of this supply mechanics problem we talk about flooding the map with a unit. Btw conscripts flood the map just as easily. We do not have to look far or even to another company that has implemented better supply mechanics please look at order of battle. Historical everything cost supply which is why armies dont flood the map. They could deploy everything everywhere but how could they supply it all?

[Kerensky]

Guys lets shift the discussion of how to make a garrison unit away from unit details like movement, cost, and core slots to the real problem : supply mechanics. We already know how to make a historical and proper garrison unit. The only problem is this games terrible supply mechanics. Because of this supply mechanics problem we talk about flooding the map with a unit. Btw conscripts flood the map just as easily. We do not have to look far or even to another company that has implemented better supply mechanics please look at order of battle. Historical everything cost supply which is why armies dont flood the map. They could deploy everything everywhere but how could they supply it all?

Sounds like you're not actually talking about supply, but core slot limits.

Slot limits do great work in campaign, but the result in MP is somewhat mixed. I found that too few slots in MP completely pigeon holed players, so more often then that MP maps have more slots than you can feasibly use (to also enable lots of use of splitting tactics, which is impossible if you max out your slots)

So prestige became the arbiter of balance in MP, and well MP is the polar opposite of campaign. Where in campaign you want the toughest units to survive the longest, in MP you can happily lose 99% of your units as long as you score the win condition of majority VH ownership.

In that environment, the cheapest and most efficient units are king.

[Horseman]

I'm not sure I'd want to see OOB supply mechanic in PC2.

To me that mechanic is a a replacement for the slots system in PC2. I like the slots system as it stands.

[BaronVonWalrus]

I'm not sure I'd want to see OOB supply mechanic in PC2.

To me that mechanic is a a replacement for the slots system in PC2. I like the slots system as it stands.

Seconded. Core slots = logistical capacity?

[Catacol]

I'm not sure I would like an idea to fix conscripts... by just making them more like every other infantry.

Infantry suffer from a lack of diversity, making them less diverse seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Increasing cost to 90 and reducing spotting range to 1 keeps them plenty different to others. And there is work that can be done on all other infantry arms. I've added Brandenburg commandos to the German orbat, SS as well, and tweaked the initiative and soft attack scores of ANZAC forces. Brits and US also need mountain troops, and I've also added foreign conscripts to Germany to represent garrison style units in Normandy. The list goes on. I wouldn't advocate making all units the same. The problem with conscripts is that they are too cheap, too fast, still see 2 hexes (allowing them to spot for artillery) and in a multiplayer environment become the defensive unit of choice in close terrain very quickly.

Air also needs looking at I think. I've modded AAA to make it more damaging and also increased slot size of all air - but there is still an issue over prestige cost which seems very low.

Perhaps for human v human multiplayer there almost needs to be a separately designed and costed orbat - and maybe some easier community mod tools?

[Kerensky]

Increasing cost to 90 and reducing spotting range to 1 keeps them plenty different to others. And there is work that can be done on all other infantry arms. I've added Brandenburg commandos to the German orbat, SS as well, and tweaked the initiative and soft attack scores of ANZAC forces. Brits and US also need mountain troops, and I've also added foreign conscripts to Germany to represent garrison style units in Normandy. The list goes on. I wouldn't advocate making all units the same. The problem with conscripts is that they are too cheap, too fast, still see 2 hexes (allowing them to spot for artillery) and in a multiplayer environment become the defensive unit of choice in close terrain very quickly.

Air also needs looking at I think. I've modded AAA to make it more damaging and also increased slot size of all air - but there is still an issue over prestige cost which seems very low.

Perhaps for human v human multiplayer there almost needs to be a separately designed and costed orbat - and maybe some easier community mod tools?

I have no objection to reducing conscript vision to 1 and mobility to 2. Unfortunately I'm not the gatekeeper of the equipment file, so it's not me that needs convincing. =)
I also think SPAT vision also needs to be reduced from 2 to 1.

[Tassadar]

What about making the garrison an immobile 5 power fortification type unit that cannot be carried over to the next scenario, but is deployed in some strategic locations on a map (not too generously, but in a few places where it could matter but placing infanctry or AT guns could be exploited)? It would protect from silly 1 power recons taking down multiple planes from an accidentaly unprotected far airfield for example, but any counquered locations would still need to be defended by part of the actual core or auxiliary units.

[voxr]

Quality of life suggestion here;

Could we mark previously spotted units somehow? At the moment after the initial scouting with Storches I am using the chat window (or you could do it with good old fashioned pen and paper) to mark coordinates of dangerous units then counting hexes to help in enemy phase positioning.

This all seems like a lot of extra work for something that could easily be solved by a UI improvement. Immobile units (like strongpoints, forts) are already permanently shown once spotted. This could be applied to last known positions of enemy units as well.

[Retributarr]

Quality of life suggestion here;

Could we mark previously spotted units somehow? At the moment after the initial scouting with Storches I am using the chat window (or you could do it with good old fashioned pen and paper) to mark coordinates of dangerous units then counting hexes to help in enemy phase positioning.

This all seems like a lot of extra work for something that could easily be solved by a UI improvement. Immobile units (like strongpoints, forts) are already permanently shown once spotted. This could be applied to last known positions of enemy units as well.

I'll take a stab at it!.
When an 'Enemy-Unit' has been initially spotted for the very first time, I would suggest that a 'Binoculars-Icon' now be visually displayed by that particular 'Spotted-Unit'... "automatically" because of being sighted by the 'Recon-Unit'. Now!... on the following turn... that 'Binocular-Icon' would slightly change its original appearance to something like being 'Greyed-Out'... to now visually indicate... that this previous 'Spotted-Unit-Location'... is now not current... but still... at the same time... indicates where it was last seen at.

I hope this can help in some way!.

[voxr]

Quality of life suggestion here;

Could we mark previously spotted units somehow? At the moment after the initial scouting with Storches I am using the chat window (or you could do it with good old fashioned pen and paper) to mark coordinates of dangerous units then counting hexes to help in enemy phase positioning.

This all seems like a lot of extra work for something that could easily be solved by a UI improvement. Immobile units (like strongpoints, forts) are already permanently shown once spotted. This could be applied to last known positions of enemy units as well.

I'll take a stab at it!.
When an 'Enemy-Unit' has been initially spotted for the very first time, I would suggest that a 'Binoculars-Icon' now be visually displayed by that particular 'Spotted-Unit'... "automatically" because of being sighted by the 'Recon-Unit'. Now!... on the following turn... that 'Binocular-Icon' would slightly change its original appearance to something like being 'Greyed-Out'... to now visually indicate... that this previous 'Spotted-Unit-Location'... is now not current... but still... at the same time... indicates where it was last seen at.

I hope this can help in some way!.

Unfortunately I believe one of the principles of UX is to keep the UI as uncluttered as possible so having additional icons and such would make the screen quite cluttered.

I believe players will intuitively understand it is the 'last known position' rather than 'confirmed position' if the unit can be seen in fog of war.

[Retributarr]

"voxr": post:
"Unfortunately I believe one of the principles of UX is to keep the UI as uncluttered as possible so having additional icons and such would make the screen quite cluttered".

Well!... perhaps after the 2nd-turn of 'observation spotting' has concluded... the 'Binocular-Icon' would then cease to be... it would disappear. This-way, screen-clutter could be minimized.

At the same time however... a 'system register' could save those spotted locations for you to be able to call it up whenever you wish to refresh the positioning of the spotted unit locations.

Those 'Binocular-Icons' can be set up to be only transitory... they do not stay permanently on the screen for too long, they are gone shortly after their initial placement.

[BaronVonWalrus]

Quality of life suggestion here;

Could we mark previously spotted units somehow? At the moment after the initial scouting with Storches I am using the chat window (or you could do it with good old fashioned pen and paper) to mark coordinates of dangerous units then counting hexes to help in enemy phase positioning.

This all seems like a lot of extra work for something that could easily be solved by a UI improvement. Immobile units (like strongpoints, forts) are already permanently shown once spotted. This could be applied to last known positions of enemy units as well.

I'll take a stab at it!.
When an 'Enemy-Unit' has been initially spotted for the very first time, I would suggest that a 'Binoculars-Icon' now be visually displayed by that particular 'Spotted-Unit'... "automatically" because of being sighted by the 'Recon-Unit'. Now!... on the following turn... that 'Binocular-Icon' would slightly change its original appearance to something like being 'Greyed-Out'... to now visually indicate... that this previous 'Spotted-Unit-Location'... is now not current... but still... at the same time... indicates where it was last seen at.

I hope this can help in some way!.

Combat Mission had a similar mechanic but I'd argue that the scale of the maps and units in that game along with all the excellent LOS mechanics made it vital.

I don't think it's needed in PC2 - air recon planes exist for a reason and have a huge spotting radius.

[voxr]

Yes, the Storch is very useful as an initial scout but personally, I often have more important things to do with them than maintaining persistent spotting on enemy units.

I use them as cheap filler to occupy air hexes above units not already covered by fighters or my flak umbrella, and as of the last patch actually using them in combat & gaining some experience on them is useful for later conversion to Ju 87/Hs 129/Fw 190 ground attack variants. I haven’t actually done the latter yet but with the way ground recon has been going (4 stars & 2 stars respectively on separate units after Poland!) it seems like a relatively quicker & easier way to get an elite bomber/fighter through conversion.

It’s just a QoL suggestion; not essential but sure would be nice to have instead of manually taking notes like I’m doing now.