Gameplay changes in 1.20

[Tarrak]

I like the challenge to play with inferior equipment to be honest and not like losing some strength points form your units is going to kill you. I wonder how everyone complains that the game is not hard enough but then suddenly when facing tough opponents and getting their overpowered "i win"-button artillery reduced to mortal level they suddenly complain. Totally losing core units all the time is no fun i grant this but going through whole scenarios without even losing a single point of strength is not either.

[monkspider]

I am kind of the opposite mindset, I always like playing as the Germans because I feel like I am having to make due with less. I am taking on the overwhelming material superiority of the Allies or Soviets and still finding a way to win. In short, when I am the Germans, I feel like I am playing as the underdog. I do also prefer to play with a "historical"core, and not fill up my core with heavy armor/mobile artillery/Jet planes.

[Zhivago]

I like the challenge to play with inferior equipment to be honest and not like losing some strength points form your units is going to kill you. I wonder how everyone complains that the game is not hard enough but then suddenly when facing tough opponents and getting their overpowered "i win"-button artillery reduced to mortal level they suddenly complain. Totally losing core units all the time is no fun i grant this but going through whole scenarios without even losing a single point of strength is not either.

The artillery is too strong crowd, are pansies, if you ask me. artillery did not get named "queen of the battlefield" for nothing. Just my opinion. If someone wants to OPTIONALLY reduce the effectiveness of their artillery units, go right ahead. Make it an OPTION though. Don't cry like that it makes the game unfair. It's a powerful stand-off weapon, and a brutal one at that. Ask anyone who has been on the receiving end of an artillery barrage.

[ThvN]

We have debated many times how in touch "factually" this game is with reality, but turning to a real world example, is there a real-world rationale that a shell fired from a farther distance is not as devastating as one fired from closer in? I would think that a shell large enough to travel three hexes (or more) would be especially devastating. Maybe there is a veteran artilleryman out there that can answer this question? Also, penalizing the longer distance dilutes the artillery range hero, doesn't it?

I'm not a veteran artilleryman, but I guess the rationale to reduce the strength could be due to the decreasing accuracy at longer ranges? In the game, strength is tied to the chances of hitting, so reducing strength over distance could represent less accuracy. Actually, right now the attack strength isn't decreased, but the defense of the target is increased (check the combat log).

I guess my overall issue with Allied Corps is that when it comes down to it, in most areas, the allied equipment (arguably for most of the war) is inferior to its German counterparts. I am finding that I am taking much higher casualties, especially in scenarios like Sicily where the Axis troops are in well defended and entrenched positions. It doesn't help matters that artillery is not as effective for suppression and counter-entrenchment.

I guess it's hard to represent superior numbers. The overstrength 'all-you-can-eat' system of beta1 was supposed to represent this, but the testers have spoken. So that leaves allowing relatively large cores, making units relatively cheap, or my personal favourite, the evacuation hexes to rotate troops. I really like that mechanism, but it is tied to the scenario design. And about respresenting numerical superiority, this might actually be more difficult in any Soviet campaign, just imagine the carnage.

And about the difficulty of digging out entrenched units, this is my major complaint about the new system. It takes a lot of effort to reduce entrenchment. Not ahistorical but game-wise I would like to see (heavy) artillery able to nip off more than one point per attack. I'll try to think of some more methods, my earlier ideas could work I think, but I don't know how easy things can be implemented in the game.

In Allied Corps it is more of a question of, how can I keep the core I have been nursing along for a dozen or more scenarios alive.

That's why everyone uses Churchills. To get that old 'Tiger vibe' of being able to absorb punishment. But the planes are quite good I think.

The artillery is too strong crowd, are pansies, if you ask me. artillery did not get named "queen of the battlefield" for nothing.

But those huge artillery guns make my tanks look even more wimpy! Psh, they are only called the 'queen' because they make a lot of noise and then whine they need more supplies.

[ThvN]

I am kind of the opposite mindset, I always like playing as the Germans because I feel like I am having to make due with less. I am taking on the overwhelming material superiority of the Allies or Soviets and still finding a way to win. In short, when I am the Germans, I feel like I am playing as the underdog. I do also prefer to play with a "historical"core, and not fill up my core with heavy armor/mobile artillery/Jet planes.

I usually limit myself as well, but in the later war years this usually dissappears gradually. I try to use different kinds of armour, early on only a single mobile artillery, and do not always upgrade everything when something new becomes available. And I have a weird streak in trying to include AT and AAA units in my core, which are generally next to useless. For the beta's, I use a bit more of a power core, to get through the scenarios more quickly.

[Zhivago]

We have debated many times how in touch "factually" this game is with reality, but turning to a real world example, is there a real-world rationale that a shell fired from a farther distance is not as devastating as one fired from closer in? I would think that a shell large enough to travel three hexes (or more) would be especially devastating. Maybe there is a veteran artilleryman out there that can answer this question? Also, penalizing the longer distance dilutes the artillery range hero, doesn't it?

I'm not a veteran artilleryman, but I guess the rationale to reduce the strength could be due to the decreasing accuracy at longer ranges? In the game, strength is tied to the chances of hitting, so reducing strength over distance could represent less accuracy. Actually, right now the attack strength isn't decreased, but the defense of the target is increased (check the combat log).

I guess my overall issue with Allied Corps is that when it comes down to it, in most areas, the allied equipment (arguably for most of the war) is inferior to its German counterparts. I am finding that I am taking much higher casualties, especially in scenarios like Sicily where the Axis troops are in well defended and entrenched positions. It doesn't help matters that artillery is not as effective for suppression and counter-entrenchment.

I guess it's hard to represent superior numbers. The overstrength 'all-you-can-eat' system of beta1 was supposed to represent this, but the testers have spoken. So that leaves allowing relatively large cores, making units relatively cheap, or my personal favourite, the evacuation hexes to rotate troops. I really like that mechanism, but it is tied to the scenario design. And about respresenting numerical superiority, this might actually be more difficult in any Soviet campaign, just imagine the carnage.

And about the difficulty of digging out entrenched units, this is my major complaint about the new system. It takes a lot of effort to reduce entrenchment. Not ahistorical but game-wise I would like to see (heavy) artillery able to nip off more than one point per attack. I'll try to think of some more methods, my earlier ideas could work I think, but I don't know how easy things can be implemented in the game.

In Allied Corps it is more of a question of, how can I keep the core I have been nursing along for a dozen or more scenarios alive.

That's why everyone uses Churchills. To get that old 'Tiger vibe' of being able to absorb punishment. But the planes are quite good I think.

The artillery is too strong crowd, are pansies, if you ask me. artillery did not get named "queen of the battlefield" for nothing.

But those huge artillery guns make my tanks look even more wimpy! Psh, they are only called the 'queen' because they make a lot of noise and then whine they need more supplies.

[ThvN]

I've come across a small oddity when purchasing units. In the purchase screen during a campaign, if I select 'show all nations' while having auxiliary nations available (Australians, etc.), any 'not enough unit slots' warning gets applied to both the core and aux nations if the wrong nationality is chosen.

Example: Bardia, during campaign: open purchase screen during deployment, while core slots are available. Select the Brits, infantry class, than select 'show all nations'. The Aussie units get added, but they do not have the red background, and can be selected without warning of 'not enough unit slots'. Press purchase, and the purchase screen closes, although the unit isn't added (so that works correctly, just feels a bit strange). The Aussies should remain highlighted red, as if they were too expensive.

Vice versa: in the purchase screen, select the British (infantry) again, select 'show all nations'. Than, select the little Australian flag, and now all the units (Brit + Aussie) are highlighted red and show: 'not enough unit slots'. The purchase button is blank as well.

Not a big problem, but it might be a simple fix?

[Mountaineer]

I've come across a small oddity when purchasing units. In the purchase screen during a campaign, if I select 'show all nations' while having auxiliary nations available (Australians, etc.), any 'not enough unit slots' warning gets applied to both the core and aux nations if the wrong nationality is chosen.

I also thought this was strange, so I am glad you bring it up.

On another issue, we need to be able to clear our own minefields. You should know the path left though them as an ally or you should be able to at least use your own engineer to take it down. Mine got in the way and I would have taken it down rather than deactivate in Cauldron.

[Razz1]

Beta 3, I have been noticing it more and more but in Operation Cobra a player can really see the affects of entrenchment.

I think entrenchment is a little too strong. Infantry units out in the open with 3 entrenchment can only be killed 1 strength point at a time. Two if lucky. And you need artillery support.

[Zhivago]

Beta 3, I have been noticing it more and more but in Operation Cobra a player can really see the affects of entrenchment.

I think entrenchment is a little too strong. Infantry units out in the open with 3 entrenchment can only be killed 1 strength point at a time. Two if lucky. And you need artillery support.

What is the base entrenchment level for desert sand?

[Rudankort]

I think entrenchment is a little too strong. Infantry units out in the open with 3 entrenchment can only be killed 1 strength point at a time. Two if lucky. And you need artillery support.

Base entrenchment of open ground is zero, so it takes several turns to build up ent level to three, and even then, artillery suffers only moderate reduction to effectiveness, and other units are not affected by new rules. Tanks should deal with infantry in the open just as well as before. I don't quite understand how infantry can cause trouble in the open.

[uran21]

I don't quite understand how infantry can cause trouble in the open.

Some units on the open have predefined entrenchment rate in the editor which can be high.

[Rudankort]

Some units on the open have predefined entrenchment rate in the editor which can be high.

Well in that case all works as designed. The idea of the new rule was to make entrenchment more important and valuable. At the sime time, there is an important difference between high-ent units in open and close terrain. In the open you can still attack infantry with your tanks with high efficiency.

[deducter]

One modding thing I forgot to mention: Is there chance of having a parameter in the scenario editor that specifies an equipment file (.pzeqp) and rules (.pzdat) for a scenario to use? This would make it easier to have stand-alone scenarios with modified equipment file be compatible with official content. This is especially true for any custom MP content, so that it wouldn't interfere with someone playing both official games and modded games.

This would be something under "Global Parameters," beneath "Scenario name" etc., and it'd be called "Scenario equipment file" and "scenario rules file." The input is simply the name of the .pzeqp and .pzdat files. Upon loading a scenario, the game will check the same folder as the scenario for these files; if the files are unavailable or corrupted, then the game will simply use the default files.

Minor bug in the scenario editor: in the scenario parameter screen, clicking the "x" (windows close button) in the upper right-hand part of the screen does not close each subscreen, although clicking "cancel" does.

Edit: A much simpler solution would actually be just to update the "custom scenario" interface a bit. Basically, like the way the Grand Campaign works now, just allow the custom scenarios to be loaded from any folder, as opposed to only the folder under "My Games\Panzer Corps\Scenario." The game will simply read the .pzscn file from that folder and use all the equipment and rules file from that folder for the scenario.

[Zhivago]

I think entrenchment is a little too strong. Infantry units out in the open with 3 entrenchment can only be killed 1 strength point at a time. Two if lucky. And you need artillery support.

Base entrenchment of open ground is zero, so it takes several turns to build up ent level to three, and even then, artillery suffers only moderate reduction to effectiveness, and other units are not affected by new rules. Tanks should deal with infantry in the open just as well as before. I don't quite understand how infantry can cause trouble in the open.

Does the initiative cap in the desert (which is 100) already decrease the effectiveness of long-range weapons?

[Razz1]

The maps start with entrenchment level of 3 or more for German units in the open and other areas.

[Kamerer]

The new rules impose a difficult cost on past games. If 1.20 rules are limited to only AC, and the game is tuned to them through another beta round or two, that should work fine.

I have not had a lot of time the last few days to get into Beta 3. My experiences with it was entering at Torch. And it was so dismal as to make me just quit the game at the 3/4 point of Sicily. But this weekend I tried AK under 1.20. No disaster so far, but if the soft cap works as it did in beta 2, this will not end well. Here are some notes from Beta 3, Afrika Korps (note: I have, since the original beta testing of AK been able to fight it through from start to finish on Rommel with all DV's):

1.20 Beta 3 notes, Afrika Corps (Rommel)

1) Recce in force, DV 16/16 (two or three turns longer than normal)

Bloody and long, took me until final turn to get a DV. In the past on the same level, I do it in 13 or 14. Also much more expensive, my corps was much more shot-up. Bottom line was playing this in 1.20 with much experience made it like the first time in AK beta 1 the first time I saw it. However, I do “replay” the best I can ignoring foreknowledge; I do my scouting, air defense, etc. all the same. I try to keep it “apples to apples.” The inability of any provided, purchased (one SturmPanzer), or upgraded artillery to have any effect on the battle was stunning. It was like shooting into thin air. It would make a new-comer discard artillery as a combat arm.

2) Ras el M’Dauuar, DV 15/15 (two turns longer than normal)
Played it as I learned before and artillery had no effect. Just sacrificed a few aux units to get through the strong points. Bloodied up my units to get it done in time.

3) Battleaxe, DV 15/17(?)
This went about as normal. A fluid battle, so changes matter less. I took more air than normal (planning ahead for new combat conditions). The extra air made a significant difference.

4) Dash to the wire, DV (barely), 18/18
Honestly here, It really hurt. Neutralizing artillery meant the NE defendants were toast. Even the aux PG, backed by two artillery units, were eliminated by attacking and quite mediocre infantry. On a strategic note, I perhaps dedicated too much to holding that position. I tried to play it “blind,” aka scouting, defending routes,etc. I did manage to get a DV at the last turn, though I did not get the captured Crusader. But I did find and kill all hangers and get the rewards. Bloody and costly, I never had a spare dime to spend on reinforcements during the scenario. When the soft cap kicks in, this will be a dead-end game, I am sure.

[Tarrak]

You know you are testing AK under one of the extra difficulties ... if it become to hard for you with the new changes go back to lower level of difficulty. That's what they are for after all.

[Delta66]

Just jumping on the beta playtest train,

Prestige soft cap:
I like the idea, could it be possible to print the current prestige koeficient gain. Either quick and dirty, like a debug value, under the prestige value, or in an info bubble when hovering the cursor over the prestige. This would help a lot to understand how it works and save a lot of time.


Forcing enemy units to surrender earns you prestige:
Very good, this one as always bugged me in the past. Killing an enemy via surrender, is actually a smart tactic, and requires carefull planing, so it should be rewarded accordingly.


Replacements come suppressed:
Good for the human player, but I think it should not affect the AI, at least unless the AI can handle it decently. having playing thtough AC 40, I noticed that the AI often replaces adjacent to the frontline. I haven't yet investigate fully how the % of suppressed steps relate to retreat hence possible surrender. But maybe a 10 strength unit with 3 suppressed steps, is more prone to retreat than a 7 strength unit without any suppressed step.

I would also vote for more differentiations between the various difficulty levels. Though honestly I find FM at 100% rather easy, so I won't consider the other level. Yet I fully understand that different peoples want different challenges.

I would also like that the extra difficulty levels, Guderian, Manstein, Rommel, where binary switches, like fog of war. So that you can taylor the difficulty more precisely, either at FM or other level.


Various suggestions:

Could the load and save screen be more differentiated. It happened a few, after long sessions, that I mistakenly loaded a game instead of saving.
Maybe add some extra red frame to the save screen.

It would be cool if pressing the 'L' key during the AI turn, would pause the AI turn, so that you can take your time to study the detailled combat result, while not missing the AI turn. And also allows us to analyze more than one AI attacks.

Another feature which I would greatly appreciate, is that the game could automatically handle the renaming of the unit to accomodate for heroes. As knowing exactly which heroes bonus you get is really important. i.e. automatically renaming "11th Hussard", to "11th Hussard, A1 D2"

Thanks for the continuing improvements.

[deducter]

I haven't yet investigate fully how the % of suppressed steps relate to retreat hence possible surrender. But maybe a 10 strength unit with 3 suppressed steps, is more prone to retreat than a 7 strength unit without any suppressed step.

These two situations are identical. A suppressed step does not roll its dice for combat.

A unit will retreat when all of its steps have been killed or suppressed. A unit will surrender if it cannot retreat.