AO43 both campaigns finished - some feedback (and questions)

[Bee1976]

One of the pillars of Panzer Corps 2 is the freedom of choice it provides

Well all you wrote sounds resonable (to me). But do plans exist for adding more traits/challenges to the game for more options/choices ?
I think there is some room for new challenges/traits.And right now most of the challenges weaken our power on the battlefield, and only a few increase the power of the ai directly.

i.e. Dark skies - AI starts with more aircraft and/or recives air reinforcements during the missions. That would reflect the situation in the later years of the war.

[Xenos]

One of the pillars of Panzer Corps 2 is the freedom of choice it provides, because it is a singleplayer campaign environment.

Obviously we care about balance. If we didn't, it's very easy to just stamp 99999 prestige into every scenario for the player and for the AI to have to spend. But we aren't going to be draconian about it.

Who does it really benefit if we FORCE players to have a historical army? You are mandated X infantry, Y armor, Z artillery. So good luck fielding the Tigers you want, you'll probably be given a 5 strength lone Tiger tank and that's all you get.

Trying to balance heroes with penalties, well look no further than the much maligned Panzer General 3D Assault and see how that went. In that game, putting heroes in units inflated the slot count. Meant as a clear attempt to balance hero power, but the end result just felt really bad to actually play. Instead of your army increasing in power with heroes, it got smaller and smaller and smaller.

Some players like to steamroll the campaigns with massively overpowered forces. Some players even go further and use cheats to become even more powerful. Nothing wrong with that, they're having their own fun. Maybe they don't want to min/max a video game, they just want to chill out and see TIGER GO SMASH, after a long day of work.

But if someone thinks their imported hero arsenal is too strong, I think that is only a problem you can solve for yourself. The game intentionally provides a bounty of heroes, 1 per scenario, plus multi-ability special heroes on top.

Who are we to say when the game needs to start cutting off players after they reach a certain number of heroes? What if 1 player has 100 terrible heroes and wants to keep fishing for more, while another player has 10 perfect synergy heroes and getting even more is completely irrelevant to their extreme power inflation?

That's not something I want to try to control, I want players to have total freedom in that regard. So you CAN get a save chain of incredibly broken super heroes, if you want it. Or you can replay DLC to reroll this set of heroes and see how it feels to get something less broken OP. I've done it, it's very cool. I had two active CORES running in parallel. One has like 0 Zero Slot heroes, and the other only has a single Zero Slot hero. It makes a big impact on the units I field, which is its own refresher on how to play the content.

As soon as we mandate things... all that freedom and replayability is gone. Everyone will have 1 of each hero type, and then the game will 'turn off' your ability to get more. Because that's 'balanced'. Everyone mandated to the same heroes sounds extremely not fun and very uninteresting though, so I don't support it.

So the freedom to make your own force stronger, and weaker, is up to each player to make in this regard.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1072040/ ... 747298456/

I would make just one change to balance things: have heroes drain prestige, instead of adding it. Maybe as a challenge option. It always seemed weird to me that you have to pay prestige (as in, your influence with high command) to field more and powerful assets, while employing famous individuals is free or even lucrative. Rationally, if there is a limited amount of goodwill you can rely upon to request a battalion of Tiger tanks, likewise it will cost you something to request their decorated commander for your operations. Would blend nicely with the difficulty levels and also curb the infinite prestige problem that rears its head even on the highest one.

Also, famous and legendary random heroes look a bit strange, too. They have no ability, so their are factually worse than everyone else and don't do anything on the field: they are legendary for what, exactly? I would simply get rid of those and let the RNG create more interesting ones.

[euramer]

I have just finished the ahistorical path with enthusiasm on General (medium) difficulty and will try the historical on Field-Marshal. Having done all the DLCs, my core units are mostly now with 4 to 5 stars and true to some above remarks I would have loved to have some more missions to keeps the good feelings. The game is getting better and better regarding immersion, and as an average player, the different difficulty levels are sufficient to keep me (very) happy.

[RandomAttack]

I finished the historical path and found it underwhelming. Getting the halftrack to safety (in two of the missions) seemed almost trivial. The ahistorical path was more fun. My real concern is that almost all my units are 5-star and that doesn't seem very realistic in 1943. When everybody is "elite", then that term doesn't really mean anything. I've thought of radically increasing costs for elite replacements, but I have TONS of prestige so don't think it would make much difference. And I guess the scenarios are designed assuming all your units have high experience, so there's that. Maybe it should have been capped at 4-star to leave SOME room to improve in the next DLC.

[FunPolice749]

I finished the historical path and found it underwhelming. Getting the halftrack to safety (in two of the missions) seemed almost trivial. The ahistorical path was more fun. My real concern is that almost all my units are 5-star and that doesn't seem very realistic in 1943. When everybody is "elite", then that term doesn't really mean anything. I've thought of radically increasing costs for elite replacements, but I have TONS of prestige so don't think it would make much difference. And I guess the scenarios are designed assuming all your units have high experience, so there's that. Maybe it should have been capped at 4-star to leave SOME room to improve in the next DLC.

I gotta say I felt the exact opposite with the campaign
I found the ahistorical boring and trivial but found a good challenge from the historical path. I don't personally play with heroes so that does have a factor but it's kinda weird to me that people found the historical path easy.

[RandomAttack]

I finished the historical path and found it underwhelming. Getting the halftrack to safety (in two of the missions) seemed almost trivial. The ahistorical path was more fun. My real concern is that almost all my units are 5-star and that doesn't seem very realistic in 1943. When everybody is "elite", then that term doesn't really mean anything. I've thought of radically increasing costs for elite replacements, but I have TONS of prestige so don't think it would make much difference. And I guess the scenarios are designed assuming all your units have high experience, so there's that. Maybe it should have been capped at 4-star to leave SOME room to improve in the next DLC.

I gotta say I felt the exact opposite with the campaign
I found the ahistorical boring and trivial but found a good challenge from the historical path. I don't personally play with heroes so that does have a factor but it's kinda weird to me that people found the historical path easy.

I only play on General, and don't feel obligated to do secondary missions if it doesn't get me anything interesting (to me) or it seems suicidal. Not even any sense in hanging around and farming experience since everything is already maxed out. I can empathize with the designers I guess given the huge variation of playstyles-- certainly can't please everyone. I just think sometimes they make the main objective too easy.

[Mojko]

Started playing the 43 campaign today and I noticed something strange right in the first mission. Fortification hex is no longer considered a close terrain?




Is this intentional?

[DefiantXYX]

My real concern is that almost all my units are 5-star and that doesn't seem very realistic in 1943. When everybody is "elite", then that term doesn't really mean anything.

Yeah indeed, the experience system is not made for the DLCs. You simply have too many scenarios, so any unit that did not die is 5 star. If not, Kummersdorf makes everything to 4 or 5 from zero.
And there is no reason to get new units, even if your core gets bigger, you better use the slots for upgrading your units.

Heroes, experience, commendations...these feature only work in 1942/1943 if you put them off or punish yourself hard in the campaigns by picking ugly traits

[makoto14]

I finished the historical path and found it underwhelming. Getting the halftrack to safety (in two of the missions) seemed almost trivial. The ahistorical path was more fun. My real concern is that almost all my units are 5-star and that doesn't seem very realistic in 1943. When everybody is "elite", then that term doesn't really mean anything. I've thought of radically increasing costs for elite replacements, but I have TONS of prestige so don't think it would make much difference. And I guess the scenarios are designed assuming all your units have high experience, so there's that. Maybe it should have been capped at 4-star to leave SOME room to improve in the next DLC.

Yes totally agree about the half truck. One suggestion is to make it not able to reinforce. Its hard to get the halftruck aircover the first few turns. without reinforcements, i think you would have to give it a mobile AA to keep it alive, making you trade off for another unit in the field.

[Tassadar]

Started playing the 43 campaign today and I noticed something strange right in the first mission. Fortification hex is no longer considered a close terrain?




Is this intentional?

It never was as far as I know. It just gave good base and max entrenchment.

[Bee1976]

My real concern is that almost all my units are 5-star and that doesn't seem very realistic in 1943. When everybody is "elite", then that term doesn't really mean anything.

Yeah indeed, the experience system is not made for the DLCs. You simply have too many scenarios, so any unit that did not die is 5 star. If not, Kummersdorf makes everything to 4 or 5 from zero.
And there is no reason to get new units, even if your core gets bigger, you better use the slots for upgrading your units.

Heroes, experience, commendations...these feature only work in 1942/1943 if you put them off or punish yourself hard in the campaigns by picking ugly traits

Thats the point. There is no need (yet) to have a big and balanced core. Because even if you recieve some more zero slot or reduced slot units, core slots are tight. In most of my playthroughs i cant deploy more units than back in scw.

But the problem with to many high experience units can be solved quite easily, if some1 wants this: the green army trait
not the best solution but it will work.

Considering immersion, i think its ok to have a complete core army with 5 stars in 43 if you are using veterans from scw. And to be honest, not loosing units means for me, that the difficulty is too low (for me and i try to raise it).

[Kerensky]

but the problem with to many high experience units can be solved quite easily, if some1 wants this: the green army trait
not the best solution but it will work.

A much better solution than mandating these gameplay elements for every player.



The choice to impact your unit experience/replacements are right there for the taking.

[Bee1976]

but the problem with to many high experience units can be solved quite easily, if some1 wants this: the green army trait
not the best solution but it will work.

A much better solution than mandating these gameplay elements for every player.



The choice to impact your unit experience/replacements are right there for the taking.

uhm i meant exactly this ?
the green army trait, whoever thinks that lvling units up is too fast, picking that trait is the easy solution ?
Im not sure if my english is too bad and i should simply give up writing here, but it wasnt my intention to mandate (?) that trait for every player ?? I just mentioned that trait and lavbeled it by its english name for those who like to pick it for less experienced units ?

[RandomAttack]

Yes, I get the Green Army thing. I can (and have) accomplish the same thing by using "house rules" as to how/when I can get elite replacements. Nor was I trying to lobby for some kind of mandated solution. My point was simply that if the scenarios/OPFOR are designed with the assumption that the human player has mostly 5-star units (??), it skews the scenario if you DON'T have that. I know there are players that can play on Field Marshall with just 1 recon unit and crush the campaign. I am not one of those people. :lol I still believe that when EVERYONE is elite, then the word doesn't really mean anything.
Didn't mean to hijack the thread, so I'll quit the subject here.

[Kerensky]

uhm i meant exactly this ?
the green army trait, whoever thinks that lvling units up is too fast, picking that trait is the easy solution ?
Im not sure if my english is too bad and i should simply give up writing here, but it wasnt my intention to mandate (?) that trait for every player ?? I just mentioned that trait and lavbeled it by its english name for those who like to pick it for less experienced units ?

Yup, and I was agreeing with you and reinforcing your comment. Not contradicting it. Just a language misunderstanding.

[Kerensky]

The comment about mandating was an example of the game not needing to mandate and force everyone into a system, when the option to opt in, or out, of it already exists.

[DefiantXYX]

Once again, I really appreciate all the options and traits you can choose. I tried several things out, my problem is the traits are not very well balanced (depending on the year!) and are too extreme.
Like "deny artillery", you get 3 points for that and with some experience and good core you simply dont need new artillery, so you can get free points for nothing.
On the other side there is stuff like green army, what is just to extreme. It's not fun to play in a normal playthrough. There should be a slider or at least dont make it count for the deployment phase.
I once played with the entrenchment skill (not sure hows it is called) when your standard units cant remove entrenchment.
That was just a pain in the ass, you got 10 units but they cant to any damage, I needed art. or bombers to kill a single infantry unit. Still it did not really change the game, you can ignore units or work around. If there is an option like give them 2x entrenchment for 1 point it could be thing you always chose.

[medkirtys]

Finished the dlc and for me the historical path was better. The scenarios just seemed more interesting.
I also agree that the experience system breaks down a bit in this dlc. The green army trait is too punishing so I don't think its a good solution to this problem.

[nexusno2000]

Once again, I really appreciate all the options and traits you can choose. I tried several things out, my problem is the traits are not very well balanced (depending on the year!) and are too extreme.
Like "deny artillery", you get 3 points for that and with some experience and good core you simply dont need new artillery, so you can get free points for nothing.
On the other side there is stuff like green army, what is just to extreme. It's not fun to play in a normal playthrough. There should be a slider or at least dont make it count for the deployment phase.
I once played with the entrenchment skill (not sure hows it is called) when your standard units cant remove entrenchment.
That was just a pain in the ass, you got 10 units but they cant to any damage, I needed art. or bombers to kill a single infantry unit. Still it did not really change the game, you can ignore units or work around. If there is an option like give them 2x entrenchment for 1 point it could be thing you always chose.

It's called Trench Slog, and for me that's pretty much free points Split your arty and use 1 slot strat bombers... or engineers which ignore ent. And later in the game you get the StuGIIIB (and later models) which are already SUPER good fro their cost and strip entrenchment like crazy.

[RandomAttack]

I finished the historical path and found it underwhelming. Getting the halftrack to safety (in two of the missions) seemed almost trivial. The ahistorical path was more fun. ...

To clarify a bit, I really enjoyed the campaign right up to the split. I personally found the ahistorical scenarios (as a group) more fun. Although the final scenarios in both paths were equally good.