Slitherine

what about supporting fire from antitank guns and tank destroyers? these were typically used in defense supporting other units, this way, they could act similarly to artillery, firing only when unit they are neighboring is attacked. this would make antitank guns a lot more useful, and heavily defended positions much harder to break through.. This way, you could make all antitank units have much lower initiative, so they would not be that effective in active role, but instead would be more suitable in defense.

Another suggestion - different heights for airplanes. strategic bombers should not be impacted by light flak, while tactical bombers should be not impacted by heavy flak.. similarly, fighter planes could have different stats based on their ceiling.. highly maneuverable planes would have advantage in low heights, while others might be better in high skies..

Multiplayer campaign, or actually some kind of a grand war multiplayer scenario, where two players could play against each other on a bigger front, even entire Europe, similarly like in Commander Great War game.

Also, maybe another way how to handle the suppression? it could be slightly longer term for armored units, simulating damaged vehicles that need to be repaired. Tanks are not always completely destroyed, but are much easier to disable, therefore most of damage taken should be in term of suppression that would have to be removed by repairs.

and with mechanized infantry - i think these should be handled a bit differently than they are right now. Their APCs should not be just the transport, but also a fighting vehicle, as these very often provided fire support to the infantry. Mechanized infantry should have longer combat radius, as these soldiers should be capable getting into combat quickly. Maybe they could be considered a hybrid unit, where it would have abilities of infantry with protection coming from their APCs, but at the other side more vulnerable against close combat attacks and ambushes, as well as more vulnerable against tanks and other heavy hitters.

I like the idea about a different way of handling suppression. In Unity of Command, units generally only recover 1-3 suppression hits per turn (and not at all if out of supply). This opens up the possibility of wearing down a unit over successive turns, and/or launching "spoiling" attacks etc. Would need some careful balancing - perhaps fewer suppression hits overall, but those hits are more "durable", perhaps recovery of only 2 per turn. So continuous artillery bombardment over 2-4 turns may be necessary to fully suppress defenders, instead of the "full blast total suppression kill them all with no losses" tactic very common in the game currently.

Also agree that mechanised infantry (and other units in transport) needs a rethink. They're just too squishy in the game, their theoretical advantage in mobility is very much hampered by their vulnerability while in transport mode. While they certainly were more vulnerable in a tactical sense, this is an operational game... in real life, motorised or mechanised infantry can and did dismount and deploy quickly into combat. There's a reason Panzer Grenadiers were far more effective than plain old infantry - their transport gave them all-important battlefield mobility, not just strategic movement capacity.

Sourdust wrote:Also agree that mechanised infantry (and other units in transport) needs a rethink. They're just too squishy in the game, their theoretical advantage in mobility is very much hampered by their vulnerability while in transport mode. While they certainly were more vulnerable in a tactical sense, this is an operational game... in real life, motorised or mechanised infantry can and did dismount and deploy quickly into combat. There's a reason Panzer Grenadiers were far more effective than plain old infantry - their transport gave them all-important battlefield mobility, not just strategic movement capacity.

I'd say that there are some simple ideas how to fix this and get closer to the real world.

1) A unit in a truck or half-track can move in their transport, get to a destination and dismount in one turn, but cannot then attack that same turn. Kind of like a smaller penalty for needing time to dismount - ready to do battle the next turn and defend if attacked, but not yet ready to attack immediately after dismounting. Maybe as a flavor, and bringing it closer to reality, towed arty can move and dismount in one turn, but cannot fire on the enemy until the next turn.

2) If a unit is moving in a transport and happens to land adjacent to an enemy unit, then it cannot dismount. Simulates a relatively realistic situation where a bunch of trucks full of slodiers run into a battle-ready tank brigade...

verstaubtgesicht wrote:

Sourdust wrote:Also agree that mechanised infantry (and other units in transport) needs a rethink. They're just too squishy in the game, their theoretical advantage in mobility is very much hampered by their vulnerability while in transport mode. While they certainly were more vulnerable in a tactical sense, this is an operational game... in real life, motorised or mechanised infantry can and did dismount and deploy quickly into combat. There's a reason Panzer Grenadiers were far more effective than plain old infantry - their transport gave them all-important battlefield mobility, not just strategic movement capacity.

I'd say that there are some simple ideas how to fix this and get closer to the real world.

1) A unit in a truck or half-track can move in their transport, get to a destination and dismount in one turn, but cannot then attack that same turn. Kind of like a smaller penalty for needing time to dismount - ready to do battle the next turn and defend if attacked, but not yet ready to attack immediately after dismounting. Maybe as a flavor, and bringing it closer to reality, towed arty can move and dismount in one turn, but cannot fire on the enemy until the next turn.

2) If a unit is moving in a transport and happens to land adjacent to an enemy unit, then it cannot dismount. Simulates a relatively realistic situation where a bunch of trucks full of slodiers run into a battle-ready tank brigade...

This has merit, but will only come into play if players do not do proper scouting and with undo off.

My 2 cents...

Im 53 years old and have been playing strategic WW2 related games since 1986 - and PC is my favorite. Its hard to beat a favorite, so my expections for a sequal are high.

Many suggestions have been explained before, so for me to emphasize its importance:
-It has been said before: DONT change the balance from the fundamentals of basic warfare to upgraded graphics, which will be viewed and experienced as overdone or non-essential (PG-upgrades best example).
-No extended supply lines please - keep the emphasize on battle instead of economics.
-LOS - not suitable for the scale of PC in my opinion.
-Switch on/off soft cap.
-Ability to choose path of planes instead of pre-programmed.
-Better chances for AT-guns.
-88mm AA in AT-role one of worst balanced units, battery would wipe out any armoured attack if alone for range.
-A scout with +2 spotting can view farther than a battleship in calm seas - even in mountain terrain (???)
-Heroes that are adapted to their role for a specific unit.
-Hero + values that can be viewed instantly in the unit details instead of calculated in your mind or with use of other tools.
-Ability to change order of appearance of units: in F6 list.
-D - disband should give higher prestige returned with units with higher experience.
-Ability to withdraw units from battlefield and exchange with unit from reserve pool.
-Some units like Pz.III have upgrades to choose from, but FW.190 stays A version throughout the game, without upgrades.
-Latest patch gave ability to hoover with mouse on free hex to see what attack value would be if unit would change to that hex - very good! Better: also on an (own)occupied hex, which helps to decide if that units should be moved beforehand or not.
-Better AI: it has been said before that AI should be improved - I never play MP, only AI. Changing AI behavior (when or where to attack) should prevent level of predictability - but on the other hand, it could conflict with historical facts - in the end a matter of taste therefore what you prefer. If you want to sticj to a more historical path in a campaign, than it will be more predictable.
-Change movement points into movement + action, or at least for some units. Good example = bridgers. Now, 2 hex away from river, means 2 turns before bridge can be started. Make it 1 mov + 1 build in 1 turn. Infantry: 1 move (instead of 2 or 3) and 1 entrenchement in 1 turn. Same for AA and artillery.
-Give short-key to change view from range movement and spotting.
-Improve predicted movement still left when moving scouts, especially in rough terrain.
-Some suggest to limit amount of certain units in core, f.i. only 3 Tigers - rest of hardware lesser quality, which will reflect reality. The latter is more historical, but will prevent core to withstand hordes of Russians attacking.
-If any improved graphics, than terrain. Again - dont improve any graphics that distract from essential (statistical) gameplay - Panzer Corps is NOT Company Of Heroes.
-Please make any additional graphics/movie during fighting switchable on/off.
-Add small scale scenarios, with limited amount of core units to be used.
-End of Afrika Korps campaign should be southern pincer movement towards oil fields Caucasus, NOT in India!
-Give ships proper name, not "German Cruiser" or "American Battleship".
-Improved replacement/supply rate for units that are cut off - how can lone Stalin 2 tank improve from 5 to 8 without any support from air/land? How can a cutoff infantry unit in the mountains improve from 1 to 10 when a Fw.190 is hovering on the hex beside it.
-Ability to pause AI-attack turn, to evaluate what damage has been done and actions to be taken.
-FOW changes: AI units farther away = less known details visible, regarding amount of ammo, etc.
-Make S (supply) choice reversable possible during turns.
-Make replacements 1 at a time, instead of forced (f.i. 1) to 10 strength - reason for me is the ability to nudge up/down certain units when there are limited resources. Also: if infantry damaged to 2 strength, a replacement to 10 may not strictly needed, then perhaps up to 7 may be enough = saving resources.
-Unexplained outcome of battle: why would 2 star Churchill crossing river with 2 strength, against 3 star Fallshirmjager in 3 entrenchement survive?
-retreating Ai-units should not end up in an hex/position that is more beneficial to them than opponent or the hex they are leaving.
-Graphics of unit in hex - balance between size - now Chevy WB is same size as Churchill tank.

I would like to end with a compliment instead of request - thank you, developers, modders and forum-members, for a continuous joy in the past years that helps me escape hard working life for a well-deserved time-off, with mouse in right hand and a glass of read wine in left hand and Soundcloud playing in background .

ptje63 wrote:with mouse in right hand and a glass of read wine in left hand

It' so important to use both hands when working on a PC to help maintain good posture! From experience, beer works as an alternative to wine.

You make much sense in your suggestions for gameplay (and in the compliment to the devs), although I can't see a way out of naval range, spotting and movement scales being different from land ones.

JaM2013 wrote:with mechanized infantry - i think these should be handled a bit differently

Allowing a switch from infantry to vehicle mode as with LRDG and Sahariana seems reasonable for specific units which could fight when in transit, or which were noted for very rapid deployment (eg panzergrenadiers, cavalry, portee mounted AT guns).

Maybe the panzergrenadiers and equivalent mechanised infantry where the transport can contribute to combat, should be kept separate from heavy weapons infantry with all those mortars, HMGs and light AT weapons.

I've been experimenting with transport units with better passive attacks for units that could put up a decent defence when in transit (either from the vehicle or because the troops they carry were able to deploy very rapidly) but which weren't suited for actual attacking. This seems to work OK and might provide part of the solution.

Another idea (maybe already mentioned before) is regarding the hardware availability. I think it would be beneficial if there is some sort of resource effectivity rating for equipment used, that would make those more reliable but less combat effective units shine more.. for example, while Panthers shine due to their strong armor and good gun, it was actually PzIV that was the workhorse of German tank units due to its better reliability and strategic mobility.. while Panthers usually had quite problem to move somewhere on their own, would face many breakdowns etc, PzIV would have less demanding use, therefore player would be opted to use these tanks more, than equipping his force with Panther only tank force..

In the past, i have tried mod the PC, and use the fuel value to simulate this to some extent, change the fuel into operational distance instead, so tanks like Tigers or Panthers (or T-34/40 or KV-1) would have limited operational use vs more reliable tanks, anyway i think it would be cool to have a separate system simulating this..

I strongly 2nd this,

Also, maybe some rarity rating like it was in Steel Panthers would be beneficial, where certain tanks would have certain rarity number, which would then increase their actual prestige cost if rarity number of units is exceeded.. so let say JagdTiger would have rarity 1, therefore if player has 1 JagdTiger in his core force, purchasing another one would cost him x times more prestige...

A house rule I've been playing with in my latest grand campaign is deployment costs. I didn't like how cheap units aren't worth their core slot as the campaign progresses, so I came up with this to help keep infantry the mainstay of my forces.

1. Unlimited core slots
2. To deploy a unit in a scenario deducts 5% of its unit cost in prestige

I'm really enjoying it, though it's a lot of number crunching at the start of each scenario.

Hi, hope my suggestions did not uccurr already...btw. is there a list where you can see what is already planned?

1. Supply-System: a frontline like in Order of Battle so units can be cut off. Also supply should be aportioned variablely to units out of a pool (like in Germany at war 1941)

2. unit alignment: units bearing direction, which includes LOS and allows flanking manouvers ( as in Battle Akademy! Well, it's a 3D Engine, isn't ? )

shortly: grab all the best features of all turnbased Games and put them together!!!

Kolaris wrote:A house rule I've been playing with in my latest grand campaign is deployment costs. I didn't like how cheap units aren't worth their core slot as the campaign progresses, so I came up with this to help keep infantry the mainstay of my forces.

1. Unlimited core slots
2. To deploy a unit in a scenario deducts 5% of its unit cost in prestige

I'm really enjoying it, though it's a lot of number crunching at the start of each scenario.

That's actually really cool. I'm going to try it...

Sorry if this has already been posted - but there's lots of text above and older eyes get fuzzy swimming through all that ....

NATO Counter option included by default.

Informative NATO counters - perhaps modeled something like TOAW. I always found them pleasing to look at and practical as well when doing my planning.

Have you alle seen the "poll page" at http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=76834 - (or rather [http://flashback.games/panzer-corps-2-ideas/]). I just saw it. It does seem to be a bit of a mess, and there seems to be a lot more material in this thread.

And it is really nice to see this thread growing - I posted it originally because I thought it needed to be here. And it really does.

I hope the developers can use it, although it is a bit of an analytical job to figure out heads and tails in all these suggestions, comments etc.

KeldorKatarn wrote:I do NOT want to see crap like line of sight, armor facing and other stuff that might make sense on a tactical level but makes absolutely ZERO sense on the level of abstraction that Panzer Corps is at.

While I agree with the LOS comment, I do not understand why is there so much opposition to "armor facing". Just try to think of it as a "direction of attack". Whether it's a panzer regiment, or even a whole division, it matters whether the attack comes from the front, side, or the rear. What sometimes annoys me in PzC is that there is no penalty for jumbled front line and units spread around in chaos with no penalty. Maybe this could be prevented with a better supply management like in OOB (an isolated unit gets no supply), but it has to be tested. I would still prefer if made a shrewd enveloping move, and I am attacking from the rear, that I get some bonus...

This is a strategic game, not tactical. Facing units is completely irrelevant at the scale of this game.

even on grand strategy level it matters if you attack enemy frontally, or use your divisions for outflanking maneuver.. for example after war, there were multiple strategies used by NATO countries and French and German strategy for use of mechanized forces called for using tank brigades in maneuver combat against flanks of advancing Soviet units.. For this simple reason French and German tanks like AMX-30 or Leopard 1 had armor protection quite minimal, and were more focused on fast movement and ability to engage enemy with accurate fire. It also meant actual projectile penetration vs soviet tanks was not that important, as intention was to surprise Soviet tanks with flanking fire hitting them from side where even 105 APDS would still be able to disable/destroy Soviet tanks no matter if they are T55 or T80.

Overall, i think having the ability to fix the enemy frontally, and engage them from sides for better effect would be beneficial to have, giving player some tactical options in battles, instead of chess like rules of engagement. I'm not saying defense should represent armor of the vehicle, but there should be possibility to avoid certain amount of defense value when attacks comes from flank or rear.. It would force player to better organize his forces, protect his flanks with units, using terrain better etc etc...

I think this has already been factored into multiple attacks by the use of Mass attack, which I hope they keep and maintain as part of the game.

goose_2 wrote:I think this has already been factored into multiple attacks by the use of Mass attack, which I hope they keep and maintain as part of the game.

Look at...
Schwerpunkt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#Schwerpunkt

The Germans referred to a Schwerpunkt (focal point) and to a Schwerpunktprinzip (concentration principle) in the planning of operations, known as Schwerpunktbildung. The Schwerpunkt was the centre of gravity, point of main effort, where a decisive result was to be achieved. Military force was concentrated at the Schwerpunkt, regardless of the sacrifices it made necessary elsewhere. By local success at the Schwerpunkt, a small force could achieve a breakthrough and gain advantages by fighting in the enemy rear. Guderian summarised this as "Klotzen, nicht kleckern!" ("Kick, don't spatter them!").[59][60]

To break through, armoured forces would attack an opposing defensive line frontally, supported by motorised infantry, artillery fire and aerial bombardment, to create a breach. Tanks and other motorised units could break out of the fortified zone without the encumbrance of slow-moving infantry moving on foot. Air forces tried to gain air superiority by attacking opposing aircraft on the ground, bombing airfields and communications and seeking tactically advantageous positions from which to destroy them in the air. Schwerpunktbildung enabled the attacker to win numerical superiority at the point of main effort, which in turn gave the attacker tactical and operational superiority, even though the attacker may be numerically and strategically inferior in general.[61]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/pa ... and_l.html
I re-fight World War Two and lose

There is a theory among some historians of the Second World War that, if only the Allies had declared war on Germany to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938, Nazism could have been defeated in a short European war.

After all...,
the Czech army was fully mobilised in 1938; three out of the nine panzer divisions that invaded the low countries in 1940 were to be equipped at the Skoda works in Pilsen ; and revisionist historians now explain Germany's successful blitzkrieg operation before Dunkirk as the result of French blunders and defiant anarchistic gestures by German tank commanders, not genius.

...This continues on with a lengthy idea's stream similar to the above at the WebSite...

http://ww2db.com/facility/Plzen_Skoda_Works_Complex/
Plzen Skoda Works Complex
When Germany took over the western half of Czechoslovakia in 1939, Skoda became an arsenal for the German military, producing Panzer 35(t) tanks, Jagdpanzer 38(t) tank destroyers, K1 howitzers, among other equipment and weapons.

Skoda Works, Plzen, Czechoslovakia

The Panzer 38(t) was the first model built in large quantities under German control, giving birth to an incredible basis for at least ten models and variants. After the Marder III tank hunter for example, the best known of these derivatives was the Jagdpanzer 38(t), better and incorrectly known as the “Hetzer”, one of the best tank hunters of WW2.