Your wishes for AO43 and above

[Xenos]

1. I hope the alternate path is a smooth path to win. Not a “convenient” win like destroy Red Army in one scenario.

I hope the alternate path involves a successful coup and regime change. And ends in a somewhat realistic armistice, after a series of defenses and counter-offensives on all fronts, and not with a completely unrealistic "final victory" with panzers rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue.

I'm not sure if a coup followed by an armistice is any more realistic than that. Even if somehow things wouldn't turn into a civil war, such an event would lead the the immediate collapse of morale and cohesion on the front. If Germany as it was couldn't fight the enemies to a standstill, than a divided Germany certainly had even less of a chance at that.

The most "realistic" victory path would probably some sort of success in the East, followed by fending off an invasion in the West, leading to a stalemate in which Germany is took weak to threaten Britain (much less the US) but the Allies don't really have what it takes to land on the continent either.

Basically Fatherland scenario... more realistic, but a bit anticlimatic.

[Gfot]

I was experimenting with changes to try and use more infantry types (typically Pioneers, Azul and Gebirgsjaeger were the usual picks, with Wehr and Grenadiere used rarely). In the end I've changed Pioneers to be bridging units (with a house rule not to field the cheap bruckenpioniere), and grenadiers to have MachineGun trait (Rapid Fire 1.5x). With the change, Grenadiers can absolutely massacre infantry, but not when it's entrenched. As a result it makes sense to field Grenadiers, and to support them with Pioneers when attacking entrenched infantry, which is how Pioneers were used historically. Also, having no cheap bridge engineers I can put on a river and basically forget about means I often need to choose between using the pioneers to support assaults or keeping them as a bridge. I originally tried reducing pioneer strength to 12 or 10 which also makes them less of a go-to unit, but I wasn't happy with their defense, even heavily entrenched they can easily be dislodged from their position. And I still haven't figured out a way to make Wehr infantry usable.

[Panzer73]

Play style I suppose. I have used grenadiers and Wehr infantry in most scenarios. A three or four star grenadier with a couple of heroes is quite deadly. One of my grenadiers at the end of '42 has +3 SA, +2 CD and +1 HA (getting close to +2). All the urban combat with enemy tanks paid off .

[Gfot]

Could be. I should note I am not playing with Aggressive Deployment, so it was really hard to make a use case for 2 movement infantry vs. 3.5 move infantry without giving the slower unit some other significant advantage. Pioneers have a bunch of bonuses, Grenadiers only have slightly higher attack values. In fact before editing the units, I used to play with Wehr Inf much more than Grenadiere. Now I made Grenadiers much more attractive, and Wehr almost useless. Balancing is tough, I have the utmost respect for people who do it for a living and have to deal with all the criticism.

[Scrapulous]

I got my biggest wish, at least in part: the Limited Stock game option. My current wishes are for the repair and development of that option. The repair is of course to fix the bug that prevents buying transports when it's enabled.

Developing the option involves two things. The first I think could address part of Gfot's complaint about the value of Wehr Infanterie: make the amount of strength supplied per scenario variable based on equipment. This could be done in a few ways, each better than the other (and each representing incremental improvement, so that this feature could become better over time if the dev team is so inclined):

• Give certain units a higher replenishment rate. For example, make Wehr Infanterie more abundant than other infantry types. This provides a "use case" that Gfot isn't finding for standard infantry: it's what you use when you don't have any more elite or specialist infantry to send into battle.
• Tie the replenishment rate to historical availability/production. So new tanks start trickling in in small amounts as the first production lines ramp up, and then increase as historical production did. This could require a fair amount of fussing with the equipment file, so...
• Allow the replenishment amounts to be modded - if replenishment amounts are expressed in the equipment file, that works, but it would be great if those values that could be modified per scenario (for instance, if three scenarios happen within a single week, and the fourth two months later, should they each give equal amounts? Probably not)

It's a lot to ask, and I'm excited to start a new core with the feature as it is once the transport bug is fixed. I hope there will be future development of it!

[sakura006]

Not really practical, but I do wish to see more variety of combat roles in the game. I think the biggest problem of PZ 2 is the lack of different combat roles. All infantries essentially serve the same role, which is to eliminate enemy in close combat. That's why only Azul, engineers, and mountain infantries are really useful. All other infantries are simply just worse than these three units. Both regular and heavy infantry has 0 close defense, which makes them vulnerable compared to the mountain infantries. Although mountain infantry has lower soft attack, it is not a big issue in close combat. You only need 12 soft attack to maximize your kill in close combat, and you can easily get it by medals and transports. Regular and heavy infantry overkill in close combat, but they lack the accuracy of the engineers. Let's not forget about mountain infantry's bonus in hills and mountains. The problem is, all the strength of heavy infantry does not serve his role well. The 1 more ground defense is useless in close combat unless you have vigilant. The hard attack is also pretty useless because you rarely see a tank in close terrain, and you will never attack a tank in open terrain. The only slightly useful thing is the 1 more initiative, but that is too marginal to justify the 1 less movement. Right now, heavy infantry has no tactic use at all. It is bad in both offense and defense. If they are given some trait to boost their defense, for example, strike first in defense (forget the hero name), they will be much useful in a defensive mission (could be a bit op though).

The same issues are in other classes. Anti-tank gun should not be the same as tank destroyers. They are infantry supporting weapons, and usually conceal well to take out enemy tanks with surprise. Tank destroyers are part of panzer divisions and are really used in front lines to destroy those heavy tanks. All artilleries are eventually just a waste of core slots compared to the 21cm. The only exception is probably the StuG IIIB, which destroys 4 entrenchment and only costs 2 slots.

The lack of combat roles in tanks are even worse. Tigers and panthers are essentially the same tanks. They have almost the same stats and almost the same price, they serve the same combat roles which is to take out hard target in open terrain. But historically, panthers were used to close combat and flank enemy tanks, while tigers were used to snipe enemy tanks from a far distance. The game completely fails to reflect the real tank battles in WW2. There are also infantry tanks (Panzer 3N, Churchill etc) which are just hot garbage. They are too expansive, but the close defense is just not high enough to really protect them in close combat. And they still cannot do any real damage to an infantry in close terrain. Flame tanks are slightly more useful, but they can still not be used in close combat without vigilant. They are better than engineer when dealing with soft target in fortifications though. Light tanks, cruise tanks and medium tanks are simply just useless once you have tigers. And there are no real infantry supporting vehicles in PZ 2.

[Hyardgune]

I really like the alphabetize heroes idea. Just a small QOL improvement.

With '43, I feel like there will be a good opportunity for Fighting Withdrawl scenarios. I really enjoy those as a change of pace. I like that '42 had some very different scenarios that added variety from the typical take/hold X victory hexes. Cereberus was a blast, although I was a bit frustrated with the Navy's inability to sail in a straight line...

[George_Parr]

The same issues are in other classes. Anti-tank gun should not be the same as tank destroyers. They are infantry supporting weapons, and usually conceal well to take out enemy tanks with surprise. Tank destroyers are part of panzer divisions and are really used in front lines to destroy those heavy tanks. All artilleries are eventually just a waste of core slots compared to the 21cm. The only exception is probably the StuG IIIB, which destroys 4 entrenchment and only costs 2 slots.

The lack of combat roles in tanks are even worse. Tigers and panthers are essentially the same tanks. They have almost the same stats and almost the same price, they serve the same combat roles which is to take out hard target in open terrain. But historically, panthers were used to close combat and flank enemy tanks, while tigers were used to snipe enemy tanks from a far distance. The game completely fails to reflect the real tank battles in WW2. There are also infantry tanks (Panzer 3N, Churchill etc) which are just hot garbage. They are too expansive, but the close defense is just not high enough to really protect them in close combat. And they still cannot do any real damage to an infantry in close terrain. Flame tanks are slightly more useful, but they can still not be used in close combat without vigilant. They are better than engineer when dealing with soft target in fortifications though. Light tanks, cruise tanks and medium tanks are simply just useless once you have tigers. And there are no real infantry supporting vehicles in PZ 2.

I would disagree with that. There is no specific link between Tank Destroyers and Panzer Divisions, nor were anti-tank guns exclusively infantry support weapons. Tank destroyers were specifically kept away from Panzer Divisions in the early going, mostly operating directly under Army or Corps Command. Once heavier tank destroyers arrived, they were generally kept in their own units, with only temporary assignments to other units. Until late in the war, where the general lack of available equipment often meant that everything was thrown together to make up somewhat capable forces. In the later stages, Tank Divisions kept entirely motorized or split TD/mot-AT anti-tank battalions. The latter was also done for some infantry divisions as well though, so it isn't exactly a thing associated with tanks. Sometimes you would see Panzer Divisions getting StuGs instead of new Panzers, but that was more due to a lack of tanks instead of a planned move to equip Panzer Divisions with tank destroyers. Hetzers, for example, were almost never assigned to Panzer Divisions, even though they were one of the most numerous vehicles near the end. Most of the tank destroyers weren't used offensively, because they had way to thin of an armor for that. They preferred to put them in ambush positions when possible.

I also wouldn't say that the role of tanks is much of an issue. Yes, some stats could use refinement, sometimes even a pretty large one, especially when you look at the sort of weapon they are using, but I don't think that there is much you can do about their role. I think the main issue with regard to German units should be a clear seperation between units equiped with 5cm guns, long and very long 7.5cm guns and 8.8cm guns. Because right now some units with 5cm guns are basically equal to units with a much more powerful 7.5cm gun. Another issue is long-barrelled guns still having the same soft attack as short barrelled ones. They probably should be a bit weaker.
You can't really do anything about the roles you mention, because tanks only have a range of one. The only difference is that some tanks have more movement-range so they are easier to use for flank attacks.

Tigers were meant as heavy breakthrough tanks, used sparingly to break open a front, for other tanks to exploit. They were then pushed into a firebrigade defensive weapon against anything, which wasn't really what they were designed for. Thing is, both Panther and Tiger had excellent long-range firepower against all sorts of tanks, though the Tiger should be able to take more punishment. Panthers weren't supposed to engage from close range either, it's just that the war-situation and lack of training in the later war often led to engagements that weren't particularly well set up. I think one can make a case for Tigers needing more core slots than a Panther. After all, one was the standard tank, the other only a heavy tank for special purposes that existed in far lower numbers.

No tank was good in close combat. Equiping tanks with a gun that was good against soft targets wasn't supposed to make them a good weapon in close terrain, it was supposed to make the tanks stronger against soft targets in general. Be it infantry, anti-tank guns or artillery. You could send tanks into cities, to give firepower and act as further protection to your infantry, but those were always at danger from infantry attack. If you make some tanks stronger in close terrain, they would be much stronger than they should be. And you would severely weaken infantry. Maybe you could give a slight boost to some defensive ratings, but I wouldn't push it too far.

Many sort of tanks fell out of use near the end of the war. Light tanks were mostly cast aside, occasionally used for recon instead, or turned into a base for other vehicles. The Germans mostly stopped using them by 1943, as did the Soviets. Cruisers were also mostly done away with, with any remnants being cruisers in name only. So long as the core-slot assignment is done right, there is no issue with other tanks becoming useless once you have Tigers, because they should be way too core-slot heavy to make up much of your core.