DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

[deducter]

Currently that is NOT the case in PzC. You do not need to make compromises. You pick the best equipment which saves you prestige and allows you to go on upgrading to the best equipment. Again it is a no brainer decision which doesn't involve any strategy in a strategy game.

To be fair, it's not a no-brainer in most of the stock campaign, especially the America missions. King Tigers are great, but they are too slow for getting DV. Panthers are fast, but they aren't a match against the M26. The towed artillery have more ammo, but the mobile artillery allows you to attack faster. And there was never enough prestige to allow for the best of all equipment + overstrength, although you could get close, by US West Coast I think everyone was struggling for prestige. They were my favorite scenarios in the stock campaign and very well designed.

Yes certain units were arguably more favored in the stock campaign, especially level bombers, while SPAAG or towed AT guns were useless. But there was on the whole more choice for the stock campaign from a strategic standpoint.

This problem is only evident in the DLCs, which I think are supremely well-designed in terms of the maps. The variety and detail of the terrain, the AI oppositions/counter attacks, the AI unit composition, the "feeling" of specific maps like Stalingrad or the Kursk maps, are all pitch-perfect. What's not well-designed IMO is the presence of strategic choices. There are none for a powergamer.

[boredatwork]

Historically tanks made less than 10% of the total German forces at the start of Barbarossa, ~200 total divisions & 20 were Panzer divisions. About 30% of German armour were PZII's or worse. I don't know of too many people who go into that scenario with that many 'obsolete' units. It doesn't make sense and you probably won't get far.

What relavence is the % of german armour on the front as a whole when the DLC focuses primarily (with a few obvious exceptions like crete) upon the portions of the campaigns which feature high concentrations of armour??

Mainstein had more infantry divisions than Panzer divisions during Kursk - that doesn't mean that to play an aproximate historical Prokhorovka scenario you need a 10:1 infantry core

[deducter]

Check out my early Barbarossa videos. I used a Panzer II, a Panzer I, and a P38(t), along with various other "obsolete" units like the Pak 36, all against T-34 tanks with better attack and defense, although they had less initiative

That's why I said most people.

Did you keep the 10-1 infantry to tank historical ratio also?

I do not, as that would make the game as boring as having all of the best equipment. It would be too challenging, because none of my tactics would matter. No amount of tactical skill would help at that point, just like no amount of AI improvement will help it against a core full of the best German units from 1943 on.

For a Panzer Division in 1941, the ratio of infantry to tanks should be about 6-9 battalions to 2 battalions, btw, not 10 to 1.

I make assumptions that you can disagree with. I think that given the outsized impact of AFVs in WWII, perhaps each AFV in the game is a battalion, while each infantry unit is a regiment. There's no guidelines for this, but I think it works out to give an acceptable level of approximation.

The key thing about simulations or games like this is the word "approximation." I agree that 100% realistic is not possible.

But there are degrees of realism. Sure, I did use a core that was as historically accurate as possible. But is a core in 1941 with a Panzer II a more realistic approximation than a core without a Panzer II? I'd argue that it is. It's still not 100% historically accurate of course.

I cannot accept the argument that realism is not even worth trying to approximate if you can't get to 100%.

[boredatwork]

I must admit, that does sound like an elegant solution BoredatWork. It would definitely introduce a interesting dynamic into force composition. People that insist on having the "dream team" of all Tiger IIs and ME-262s would be able to do so on easier difficulties, while harder difficulties would force the player to use a more historical core.

Actually just to clarify - people would be able to have the "dream team" on any difficulty - the difference is that team would *always* be smaller than the team which included more cheap units - powerwise ideally they should work out to the same - the higher strength of the better units being compensated for by their fewer numbers, thus difficulty would remain the same regardless of which approach the player adopted.

[AgentTBC]

I think the slot idea is perfect. Right now it is true that it is easy to afford the best of every unit even on the harder difficulty levels. I know in my Rommel playthrough I've been running all Tigers, Panthers, FW190s, and lots of the best artillery. Oh, and an Elefant. The only reason I don't have another Elefant or two is I was waiting to upgrade to Jagdpanthers which I thought first appeared in January of 1944 but were not available in Korsun Pocket or Breakout for some reason.

Hell, on anything but Manstein you can also mostly use elite replacements and overstrength even your armor units for 13-14 strength Tiger and Panther goodness. It makes things rather easy.

[MartyWard]

Historically tanks made less than 10% of the total German forces at the start of Barbarossa, ~200 total divisions & 20 were Panzer divisions. About 30% of German armour were PZII's or worse. I don't know of too many people who go into that scenario with that many 'obsolete' units. It doesn't make sense and you probably won't get far.

What relavence is the % of german armour on the front as a whole when the DLC focuses primarily (with a few obvious exceptions like crete) upon the portions of the campaigns which feature high concentrations of armour??

You mean like the Barbarossa scenario, which basically covers Army Group Center? Or Bagration, which also covered Army Group Center? The Low Countries, which covers the whole active Western Front? Only tiny portions of large battles included high proportions of armour to infantry. Most scenarios cover the whole thing not the small portions where big armour battles occurred.
And if you build a core to cover those small portions where there was a ton of armour, why would you use them in the other, larger scale scenarios where the most common unit was the foot mounted infantryman?

[MartyWard]

For a Panzer Division in 1941, the ratio of infantry to tanks should be about 6-9 battalions to 2 battalions, btw, not 10 to 1.

Yes but when you are playing the Low Countries or Barbarossa or most any other scenario your core cannot be a division, the front would be just a tad to big to cover
To be anywhere near historical your core would be mostly infantry with only a handful of armour, no artillery (as the Germans did not field distinct artillery units they were generally assigned at division, corp or army group level), no mobile flak units (same reasoning), no AT units (same reasoning until very late in the war) and a constantly varying level of air units. It would be pretty boring.
So playing with the best units possible or some mix of other units is pretty much the same thing, ahistorical. The real question is which way gives you the most enjoyment. That's the way you should play it. You can set your own prestige limit if you like, your own lesser core size, or choose to use whatever equipment you like. Whatever way you choose is the right way.

[deducter]

For a Panzer Division in 1941, the ratio of infantry to tanks should be about 6-9 battalions to 2 battalions, btw, not 10 to 1.

Yes but when you are playing the Low Countries or Barbarossa or most any other scenario your core cannot be a division, the front would be just a tad to big to cover
To be anywhere near historical your core would be mostly infantry with only a handful of armour, no artillery (as the Germans did not field distinct artillery units they were generally assigned at division, corp or army group level), no mobile flak units (same reasoning), no AT units (same reasoning until very late in the war) and a constantly varying level of air units. It would be pretty boring.
So playing with the best units possible or some mix of other units is pretty much the same thing, ahistorical. The real question is which way gives you the most enjoyment. That's the way you should play it. You can set your own prestige limit if you like, your own lesser core size, or choose to use whatever equipment you like. Whatever way you choose is the right way.

I'm not only discussing the game from a roleplaying standpoint. I'm also discussing the game from a powergaming standpoint. There is only 1 right answer for the powergamer in this game, period. That is not a strategy game.

[MartyWard]

I'm not only discussing the game from a roleplaying standpoint. I'm also discussing the game from a powergaming standpoint. There is only 1 right answer for the powergamer in this game, period. That is not a strategy game.

For you maybe but for most others, the not so hard core gamers, using the best equipment is the only way to get through the whole game. Or else use cheat codes.

[boredatwork]

You mean like the Barbarossa scenario, which basically covers Army Group Center? Or Bagration, which also covered Army Group Center? The Low Countries, which covers the whole active Western Front? Only tiny portions of large battles included high proportions of armour to infantry. Most scenarios cover the whole thing not the small portions where big armour battles occurred.

Barbarossa? Low Countries? Bagration???

DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

What relavence is the % of german armour on the front as a whole when the DLC focuses primarily (with a few obvious exceptions like crete) upon the portions of the campaigns which feature high concentrations of armour??

My argument is that from the first scenario of DLC 39 forward...

It tries to make the GCs more realistic,

while the answer to the question what is the best way to get throught the DLCs', shouldn't be so obviouis.

Again I'm not sure what the relavence of your statistics are.

[MartyWard]

You mean like the Barbarossa scenario, which basically covers Army Group Center? Or Bagration, which also covered Army Group Center? The Low Countries, which covers the whole active Western Front? Only tiny portions of large battles included high proportions of armour to infantry. Most scenarios cover the whole thing not the small portions where big armour battles occurred.

Barbarossa? Low Countries? Bagration???

DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

What relavence is the % of german armour on the front as a whole when the DLC focuses primarily (with a few obvious exceptions like crete) upon the portions of the campaigns which feature high concentrations of armour??

My argument is that from the first scenario of DLC 39 forward...

It tries to make the GCs more realistic,

while the answer to the question what is the best way to get throught the DLCs', shouldn't be so obviouis.

Again I'm not sure what the relavence of your statistics are.

The question I have been discussing is the make up of the core (historical or not) not just the make up of your core in 44, or in the any of the particular DLC's.

[Zhivago]

That is really a silly argument. That is like a football team saying, I am not going to use the best players on my team in the game--I am going to use the backups and substitutes and see if I can win the game. If that is the kind of game you are looking for, then go for it.

So silly it forms the basis for dozens of successful wargames that give players the option of picking their own force?

Actually it's more like a National Hockey League Team saying I would love to ice the 20 players from the all star team but because their collective salaries total ~150 million and I'm constrained by the SALARY CAP of 60 million a year I have to choose where to spend my finite budget - getting a few multi million dollar superstars then filling out the rest of the team with rookie talent.

Even then the sports analogy is flawed because I was not proposing constant numbers as you would find in a team based context but variable numbers depending upon the quality of the unit in question.

But the essence of Panzer Corps is to allow each player to build his core whatever way he wants to.

On the contrary - go back to the original Beta discussion - the goal of PzC wasn't to allow each player to build his core whatever way he wants to - If that were the case why bother with prestige at all? Why not just give players the automatic option of always having the best equipment as soon as possible?

The essence of Panzer Corps was to trade off limited resources to build his core in whatever compromise he wants to.

To quote Alex:

I don't want to prohibit the player from using many Tigers in all cases. It just should not be a no-brainer as in PG. You can have many Tigers if you want, but then you need to make compromises and buy less cool fighters/tac bombers/artillery

Currently that is NOT the case in PzC. You do not need to make compromises. You pick the best equipment which saves you prestige and allows you to go on upgrading to the best equipment. Again it is a no brainer decision which doesn't involve any strategy in a strategy game.

Your hockey analogy is already the case--even if a player wants to buy or upgrade to the best equipment possible, he is still restrained by prestige and numbers of units permitted in each scenario. This is the same as a hockey team, or football team. You buy the best players you can afford with the money available to you. Unless a player uses a cheat code and adds prestige, there is a limited amount of prestige. I think this is especially true in DLC 44 where you are playing scenarios that have 20-25 core slots available. You can choose to put five Panzer IVG's out on the battlefield if it makes you feel like you are pledging greater allegiance to some form of historical accuracy, but if the goal is to put the 20-25 best units on the map that will give you the best chance at winning, why would you put five Panzer IVG's out there if you had the option to go with 5 Tiger II's.

Again, the only solution is to make a scenario that either forces a default core upon the player comprised of a variety of different weapons of varying strengths, or one that specifically limits the player to using 3 Tigers, or 5 artillery pieces, or 4 fighter planes, etc. However, as long as Panzer Corps allows a player to buy whatever units he can afford, this whole argument is really pointless. I never thought I would have a debate with someone who wanted to argue for the right to put a weaker force on the field. Why not make the Russians more challenging and still use the best equipment you can afford? Try Manstein if you want more of a challenge.

[Zhivago]

Historically tanks made less than 10% of the total German forces at the start of Barbarossa, ~200 total divisions & 20 were Panzer divisions. About 30% of German armour were PZII's or worse. I don't know of too many people who go into that scenario with that many 'obsolete' units. It doesn't make sense and you probably won't get far.

What relavence is the % of german armour on the front as a whole when the DLC focuses primarily (with a few obvious exceptions like crete) upon the portions of the campaigns which feature high concentrations of armour??

Mainstein had more infantry divisions than Panzer divisions during Kursk - that doesn't mean that to play an aproximate historical Prokhorovka scenario you need a 10:1 infantry core

Go check out wikipedia and read about German Heavy Tank Battalions, like the 502nd. They were almost totally compromised of Tigers and Panthers and Tiger II's. Maybe the game should be called Heavy Tank Battalion Commander?

[ivanov]

I've always thought of my core as of a corps-sized formation ( Panzer Corps ), where one tank unit represents roughly a batalion. If all your core was representing a batalion, where each tank was roughly a platoon ( three tanks ), then PC could be hardly called an operational scale, strategic game... Of course the scale is relative, depending on the map, but the unit size never goes bellow the batalion size. It rather increases sometimes to the regimental scale.

[boredatwork]

Your hockey analogy is already the case--even if a player wants to buy or upgrade to the best equipment possible, he is still restrained by prestige and numbers of units permitted in each scenario. This is the same as a hockey team, or football team. You buy the best players you can afford with the money available to you.

It is not the case in the DLC which is the point because, as was said repeteadly prestige is NOT a restraint the further you get into the DLC. In 1939/40 you had to be choosy, by 1941 onwards there is no reason you can't afford to fill up entirely on the "best" available.

Again, the only solution is to make a scenario that either forces a default core upon the player comprised of a variety of different weapons of varying strengths, or one that specifically limits the player to using 3 Tigers, or 5 artillery pieces, or 4 fighter planes, etc.

Only solution??

Have you even bothered to read my posts where I repeatedely made a suggestion for a ***Quality*** based core system instead of the current ***Quantity*** system? Such a system would allow you to retain your all King Tiger force if that is what you desire while at the same time making other core force compositions viable alternatives??

I'm not pulling this out of my ass - it's a very common approach to games where the player can build his own force - the only difference between my propasal and those listed below is instead of buying generic units, you're "buying" units from your core to deploy. I'm at a complete loss why some people don't "get it":

SPWW2


Starcraft2


WHFB


Combat Mission


FoW

Go check out wikipedia and read about German Heavy Tank Battalions, like the 502nd. They were almost totally compromised of Tigers and Panthers and Tiger II's. Maybe the game should be called Heavy Tank Battalion Commander?

That of course assumes you view your core as a Bn sized kampfgruppe - in which case you could indeed make a case for a Tiger heavy force. Personally however to me the scale varies between divisional and army level - Prokorovka for example being the approximate ground over which the 2nd SS Pz Corp fought 5th GTA. By that logic units would approximate battalions or regiments in scale. Certainly a Tiger would be present - you could also make the case that, being particularly favoured you received a second HT Bn. Equiping a full division with Tigers however simply was not practical, given that they took considerably more resources to build.

I never thought I would have a debate with someone who wanted to argue for the right to put a weaker force on the field. Why not make the Russians more challenging and still use the best equipment you can afford? Try Manstein if you want more of a challenge.

Because for some people the fun is to be placed in an approximately historical situation (within the limits of the game) and seeing if you can do better. If I use PzIIIs and IVs with 1 Tiger at Kursk and win I can make believe I've fought better than Manstein. If I go all stupid with a 15 Tiger force which Hitler could not have provided no matter how much he liked the commander the result is, for me personally a pointlessly dull steamroll.

[deducter]

To be fair, the "burning Tigers" at Prohkorovka, in which supposedly dozens upon dozens of German Tigers were destroyed by charging T-34s, was a propaganda myth of the Red Army. In fact there was no Tiger present at Prohkorovka.

The 5th Guards Army had maybe 800 tanks and the Germans had maybe 300 AFVs. The Soviets lost almost their entire tank force while the Germans lost only a few, certainly not hundreds. It was a clear tactical victory, but also a Pyrrhic victory for the Germans. Sure they had crushed vast numbers of Soviet tanks for few losses, but at the end of the day they couldn't advance any further. And Soviet production was such that those tank losses were replaced in less than a month.

I will however happily admit to fielding an ahistoric core with maybe 2 Tigers for when I get to Prohkorovka in the game.

[ivanov]

The II SS panzer Corps had about 35 Tigers in three companies attached to each of it's Panzer Divisions before the operation Citadel. Did they not survive until the Prohkorovka battle?

Even if there were no Tigers taking part in the real battle, I have no problem fielding one or two, because it wouldn't spoil the the general feel of the scenario for me.

[Carius]

Yes, there was Tigers present for the advance towards Prohkorovka.

[deducter]

Hmm, I apparently I remembered it wrong, there probably were a few Tigers at Prokhorovka, it is in this 2000 book Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis by Zetterling and Frankson. According to the book, there were 15 Tigers, so roughly 1 company at Prokhorovka. There were about 300 German AFV total, so that's 1/20 of the total armored strength.

Edit: According to the book, the Soviets lost about 300/350 tanks out of 600/800, depending on how you count, while the Germans lost at most 56 AFV out of 300. So the Soviets didn't lose all of their tanks. It was still a tactical victory for Germany, but the Soviets could easily afford these losses.

Nevertheless, Soviet claims of 100 Tigers destroyed is pure myth. But this is getting OT.

[ivanov]

Well, in general the Soviet and Allied troops alike, were in their opinion facing mostly Tigers and Panthers on any battlefield from 1943 onwards

It was an obvious myth and war propaganda and I have a feeling that they are still resounding to this day in the common perception of the WWII.