Slitherine

I have played PC1 for thousands of hours and these are the things I am missing in PC2:

- quickly save and load if the attack was not good enough. I perfected this so thatit only took a couple of seconds load and try again. I know I am not the only one doing this, haha

- I liked the map graphic better in pc1. Would be great to be able to switch to classic UI

- i don’ like that planes must return to base. I positioned planes above weak units to protect them. Should be an option to not have to return them

- overpowering units should not cost unit slots.

Basically it should be more like pc1, but with added features like generals and heroes.

Donvegardo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 12:33 pm - quickly save and load if the attack was not good enough. I perfected this so thatit only took a couple of seconds load and try again. I know I am not the only one doing this, haha

You do realise the main reason the undo feature works the way it does is to cut down on save scumming (because the devs realise players like you will do that anyway)? Just set it to unlimited undos and 100% RNG and have perfect rolls for every combat if that's what you want.

Very nice graphics...LOVED the map improvements. ABSOLUTELY loves the skins for all units.

Same tired Campaign following the same tired scenarios. WHAT? DId you just convert the PG1/2 early German campaign into the PC2 campaign?!?!?!?!

I miss having airplane land and refuel...ALLOWING THEM TO BE ATTACKED while in the hangar refueling. I liked the idea that required planed to return home each turn. This gave range by airplanes a realistic feel. " Damn...I need that airfield in enemy hands"

BUSINESS MODEL _ Here we go again......nickel and dime us with updates and new releases with the same tired scenarios we've already played in all the other wargames
Next year we'll release the German invasion in the West...only $19.95 (Cha-ching)...followed by new releases ($19.95 each please) for EACH the german campaigns until they get to 1945. Then they will release an ALLIED version...rinse repeat...then they will move into the Pacific (BIG release $29.95) and follow the business model OOB is using.
SAME OLD TIRED CAMPAIGNS. We've been playing basically the same thing- WE KNOW THE ENDING- Germans, Japanese LOST. GIVE US MORE FICTIONAL CAMPAIGNS or ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY in designing custom Campaigns and 100% custom armies, countries and units

In OOB, Im building a NEW FICTIONAL CAMPAIGN...Mexico and Italy vs the Republic of Texas...….LET US fully create custom armies with all kinds of super cool units. PG2 comes to mind on units. If I remember correctly, user made equipment lists had ..1000-2000 unit types from various games rolled into one. You could get extremely creative with custom campaign

tigersnack wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:58 pm BUSINESS MODEL _ Here we go again......nickel and dime us with updates and new releases with the same tired scenarios we've already played in all the other wargames
Next year we'll release the German invasion in the West...only $19.95 (Cha-ching)...followed by new releases ($19.95 each please) for EACH the german campaigns until they get to 1945. Then they will release an ALLIED version...rinse repeat...then they will move into the Pacific (BIG release $29.95) and follow the business model OOB is using.
SAME OLD TIRED CAMPAIGNS. We've been playing basically the same thing- WE KNOW THE ENDING- Germans, Japanese LOST. GIVE US MORE FICTIONAL CAMPAIGNS or ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY in designing custom Campaigns and 100% custom armies, countries and units

In OOB, Im building a NEW FICTIONAL CAMPAIGN...Mexico and Italy vs the Republic of Texas...….LET US fully create custom armies with all kinds of super cool units. PG2 comes to mind on units. If I remember correctly, user made equipment lists had ..1000-2000 unit types from various games rolled into one. You could get extremely creative with custom campaign

Are you seriously complaining about a WW2 strategy game having WW2-content in it?
Granted, it could be nice if future DLCs would also include rare mission-branches alongside the more obvious ones, but apart from that it would be really ridiculous if they just threw in random weird stuff instead of content that fits to what the game is about. It's also rather odd to claim that it's basically the same thing all the time. The Grand campaign, just like the Sea Lion campaign were nothing like any of the stuff that came in Panzer General or Panzer Corps before. It's not like you were forced to buy another WW2-game either. Complaing about its content is like looking at a Formula 1 game and saying "that's nice an all, but we had so many Formula 1 games before, why don't you turn it into a racing game in space?".

If you want to turn a WW2-game into something different, you can always create a mod (or play an existing one). The game already allows for you to add your own units or to create your own scenarios and campaigns.

Horseman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:05 pm

Owi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:20 pm give us more "zoom out" i want to be eable to see the whole map on both strategy and normal view. This is a wargamestretegy you need that options.

I second that - at the very least I'd like to see the whole map in strategic view.

Plus for those who like to do AAR's it's good to be able to take a screen of the whole map to show an idea of the layout.

Having an actual Strategic Map, where seeing the entire map (or major portion of it) would be a big improvement for planning and spotting potential problems. All it should be used for is strategic planning, no movement, no assaults etc., just view, to get the general picture

George_Parr wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 2:47 pm

tigersnack wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:58 pm BUSINESS MODEL _ Here we go again......nickel and dime us with updates and new releases with the same tired scenarios we've already played in all the other wargames
Next year we'll release the German invasion in the West...only $19.95 (Cha-ching)...followed by new releases ($19.95 each please) for EACH the german campaigns until they get to 1945. Then they will release an ALLIED version...rinse repeat...then they will move into the Pacific (BIG release $29.95) and follow the business model OOB is using.
SAME OLD TIRED CAMPAIGNS. We've been playing basically the same thing- WE KNOW THE ENDING- Germans, Japanese LOST. GIVE US MORE FICTIONAL CAMPAIGNS or ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY in designing custom Campaigns and 100% custom armies, countries and units

In OOB, Im building a NEW FICTIONAL CAMPAIGN...Mexico and Italy vs the Republic of Texas...….LET US fully create custom armies with all kinds of super cool units. PG2 comes to mind on units. If I remember correctly, user made equipment lists had ..1000-2000 unit types from various games rolled into one. You could get extremely creative with custom campaign

Are you seriously complaining about a WW2 strategy game having WW2-content in it?
Granted, it could be nice if future DLCs would also include rare mission-branches alongside the more obvious ones, but apart from that it would be really ridiculous if they just threw in random weird stuff instead of content that fits to what the game is about. It's also rather odd to claim that it's basically the same thing all the time. The Grand campaign, just like the Sea Lion campaign were nothing like any of the stuff that came in Panzer General or Panzer Corps before. It's not like you were forced to buy another WW2-game either. Complaing about its content is like looking at a Formula 1 game and saying "that's nice an all, but we had so many Formula 1 games before, why don't you turn it into a racing game in space?".

If you want to turn a WW2-game into something different, you can always create a mod (or play an existing one). The game already allows for you to add your own units or to create your own scenarios and campaigns.

Are you seriously twisting my words for your ego? The human EGO is the ROOT CAUSE of all war and strife......
Please control your EGO and don't let it control your actions and thoughts =) You'll be a much better human being if you learn to control it.

YES...Im tired of the same exact campaign paths as PG 1, PG 2, PG 3 (yuck!), Panzer Corp, Order of Battle and now again Panzer 2...Above I asked for MORE OPTIONAL or the ability for fans can create all new or fictional battles. Nowhere did I complain about ww2......I complained about the exact same paths.


Again..you'll be much better when you can control your ego and NOT let it ATTACK. That is rather poor behavior. There are some grea self help books on recognizing the behavior of the human ego and how to also recognize when it takes control of thoughts and behavior =)

Eckhardt Tolle is a well known author on the subject

In this instance, it is you who have allowed your EGO to dictate your response.

You have clearly just complained that a WWII game follows the same path as WWII took......when called out about it you've gone on a rant in a manor you (incorrectly) accused another player of using.

More on topic- I would like to see some more alternate history content in future DLC

Horseman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:38 pm More on topic- I would like to see some more alternate history content in future DLC

This is complicated by people who aren't at all interested in non-WW2 content. Any scenario marked 'fictional' automatically sees less play than one marked 'historical'.
So I would expect to see primarily historical campaigns, but bonus scenarios and branches to explore fictional things.

Kerensky wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:01 pm

Horseman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:38 pm More on topic- I would like to see some more alternate history content in future DLC

This is complicated by people who aren't at all interested in non-WW2 content. Any scenario marked 'fictional' automatically sees less play than one marked 'historical'.
So I would expect to see primarily historical campaigns, but bonus scenarios and branches to explore fictional things.

In a sense... your both correct?... or do I make "non-sense?"... "Yes!"...'Sense' it is. Why?... is that?.

In reality... WWII could have splintered off into many other 'Alternate-Pathways'... as has already been laboriously debated in this forum by many participants (a few of those discussions are definitely mine). Some 'pathways/choices'... will only result with minor deviations to the 'Historical-Time-Line' and yet... other pathway decisions... will result in more probable severe changing outcomes.

For the 'European Theatre'... perhap's as an example... if the Italians had participated with the Germans at the beginning or outset of the invasion of 'Albania' as "partners" instead of trying to go it alone... I'm sure that... that in it self... could have made a difference in the rapid subjugation of that country in a speedy-efficient fashion. Also then... thereby... possibly resulting in the Yugoslavians and Greeks dampening their enthusiastic rush to join the Allies in a common struggle against the Axis.

Had that have actually have taken place, then the invasion of for example... Russia could have begun much sooner... with the real possibility of taking 'Moscow'... which would have then effected/affected the war in the East.

These hypotheticals are not just... "Fantasy/Fiction"... they are... in fact real-actual-possibilities!.
There are many other situations that could also have altered the war.

I wouldn't classify these 'Historical Alternatives'... as 'Fictional'... as that does give "no incentive" for the player to attempt anything like that. Instead... list it as... 'Historical Alternatives'... with whatever mission objective or objectives that can possibly be gained/garnered from taking such an action or choice... and as well as to what the benefits from it are possible and or also the detriments from what such choices could be.

This is only 'ONE'... such historical possibility... there are scores more!.

tigersnack wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:58 pm Very nice graphics...LOVED the map improvements. ABSOLUTELY loves the skins for all units.

Same tired Campaign following the same tired scenarios. WHAT? DId you just convert the PG1/2 early German campaign into the PC2 campaign?!?!?!?!

I miss having airplane land and refuel...ALLOWING THEM TO BE ATTACKED while in the hangar refueling. I liked the idea that required planed to return home each turn. This gave range by airplanes a realistic feel. " Damn...I need that airfield in enemy hands"

BUSINESS MODEL _ Here we go again......nickel and dime us with updates and new releases with the same tired scenarios we've already played in all the other wargames
Next year we'll release the German invasion in the West...only $19.95 (Cha-ching)...followed by new releases ($19.95 each please) for EACH the german campaigns until they get to 1945. Then they will release an ALLIED version...rinse repeat...then they will move into the Pacific (BIG release $29.95) and follow the business model OOB is using.
SAME OLD TIRED CAMPAIGNS. We've been playing basically the same thing- WE KNOW THE ENDING- Germans, Japanese LOST. GIVE US MORE FICTIONAL CAMPAIGNS or ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY in designing custom Campaigns and 100% custom armies, countries and units

In OOB, Im building a NEW FICTIONAL CAMPAIGN...Mexico and Italy vs the Republic of Texas...….LET US fully create custom armies with all kinds of super cool units. PG2 comes to mind on units. If I remember correctly, user made equipment lists had ..1000-2000 unit types from various games rolled into one. You could get extremely creative with custom campaign

Regarding: _ tigersnack post:
He's right!... we still love the regular WWII "run-through"... but... eventually... to some extent... it starts to become repetitively tiresome!... though... not that readily too easily!.

That's why... as explained in my previous post... at some time in the future... it would be a 'Great-Idea!!!"... I think... to create another "Grande' Campaign" style effort!. Various 'Realistic' 'Hypothetical' (Not Bizzar Fiction) postulations... but... instead... based on the actualities of the said historical time-line/period in history... could then be put to the test.

This time... label this new effort to something like... "Alternative Histories _ Grande' Campaign."

Whereby... now!... you can develop and experience various 'Realistic' WWII Game ending situations. Here now... would be 'Your' opportunity to explore and experience various WWII story-lines... where trying to re-duplicate the same effort would be a near futility!.

Altermann wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 5:25 pm

Horseman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:05 pm

Owi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:20 pm give us more "zoom out" i want to be eable to see the whole map on both strategy and normal view. This is a wargamestretegy you need that options.

I second that - at the very least I'd like to see the whole map in strategic view.

Plus for those who like to do AAR's it's good to be able to take a screen of the whole map to show an idea of the layout.

Having an actual Strategic Map, where seeing the entire map (or major portion of it) would be a big improvement for planning and spotting potential problems. All it should be used for is strategic planning, no movement, no assaults etc., just view, to get the general picture

There already is the option to zoom all the way out. Under Display/UI settings you have to select Unrestricted Zoom. Then you can zoom out forever until the entire map is a tiny speck on the screen!

This also bugged me in PC1: You should be able to tell your units how they move. You can just set the end point and the unit will move there, but you have no influence how they get there. If you played advance wars on gameboy, you might know how they did it, you can specify how your units move. This is especially annoying if you want to move somewhere and you know there is an enemy unit in the fow, but can't tell your unit to move around it.
Also annoying with planes (especially with scout planes), which would greatly benefit from this change.

pewp3w wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:12 am This also bugged me in PC1: You should be able to tell your units how they move. You can just set the end point and the unit will move there, but you have no influence how they get there. If you played advance wars on gameboy, you might know how they did it, you can specify how your units move. This is especially annoying if you want to move somewhere and you know there is an enemy unit in the fow, but can't tell your unit to move around it.
Also annoying with planes (especially with scout planes), which would greatly benefit from this change.

I'd favour adding a simple mechanic such as holding down left control to allow a player to set waypoints and thus override the game's automatic pathing. The game already allows the player to override the unit selection by holding shift to allow units to switch places, so this should be doable.

Horseman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:38 pm
More on topic- I would like to see some more alternate history content in future DLC

Agreed, I do enjoy the historical run through, but I also found the Middle-East to Caucasus line to be very fun, which ofcourse is ahistorical. There is a game in development "Klotzen: Panzer Battles" that has some interesting features, such as allowing the player influence events so the path of the war can stray into some interesting branches; they mention delaying Barbarossa, fighting a Allied invasion of Spain, defending '43 allied landing in France. Unfortunately I doubt that it will have the same great game play and mechanics that PzC 2 has had.

These alternate paths could even just be added to the current campaign, to provide extra branches so people could stay more strictly historical, or branch off into interesting hypotheticals. This could be released as small dlc meaningful to those of us that enjoy it, but not a massive dlc that would cost too much time and money for the devs. In addition doing a "Italian Corps Campaign", were you turn the Italian Army into an effect fighting force would be challenging and fun. The same could also be done with the Free French. I do realize as Kerensky mentioned, that any such variance will turn some players off, but given the long shelf life of this game I think there would time and interest once the "standard routes" are done.

tigersnack wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:15 pm

George_Parr wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 2:47 pm

tigersnack wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:58 pm BUSINESS MODEL _ Here we go again......nickel and dime us with updates and new releases with the same tired scenarios we've already played in all the other wargames
Next year we'll release the German invasion in the West...only $19.95 (Cha-ching)...followed by new releases ($19.95 each please) for EACH the german campaigns until they get to 1945. Then they will release an ALLIED version...rinse repeat...then they will move into the Pacific (BIG release $29.95) and follow the business model OOB is using.
SAME OLD TIRED CAMPAIGNS. We've been playing basically the same thing- WE KNOW THE ENDING- Germans, Japanese LOST. GIVE US MORE FICTIONAL CAMPAIGNS or ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY in designing custom Campaigns and 100% custom armies, countries and units

In OOB, Im building a NEW FICTIONAL CAMPAIGN...Mexico and Italy vs the Republic of Texas...….LET US fully create custom armies with all kinds of super cool units. PG2 comes to mind on units. If I remember correctly, user made equipment lists had ..1000-2000 unit types from various games rolled into one. You could get extremely creative with custom campaign

Are you seriously complaining about a WW2 strategy game having WW2-content in it?
Granted, it could be nice if future DLCs would also include rare mission-branches alongside the more obvious ones, but apart from that it would be really ridiculous if they just threw in random weird stuff instead of content that fits to what the game is about. It's also rather odd to claim that it's basically the same thing all the time. The Grand campaign, just like the Sea Lion campaign were nothing like any of the stuff that came in Panzer General or Panzer Corps before. It's not like you were forced to buy another WW2-game either. Complaing about its content is like looking at a Formula 1 game and saying "that's nice an all, but we had so many Formula 1 games before, why don't you turn it into a racing game in space?".

If you want to turn a WW2-game into something different, you can always create a mod (or play an existing one). The game already allows for you to add your own units or to create your own scenarios and campaigns.

Are you seriously twisting my words for your ego? The human EGO is the ROOT CAUSE of all war and strife......
Please control your EGO and don't let it control your actions and thoughts =) You'll be a much better human being if you learn to control it.

YES...Im tired of the same exact campaign paths as PG 1, PG 2, PG 3 (yuck!), Panzer Corp, Order of Battle and now again Panzer 2...Above I asked for MORE OPTIONAL or the ability for fans can create all new or fictional battles. Nowhere did I complain about ww2......I complained about the exact same paths.


Again..you'll be much better when you can control your ego and NOT let it ATTACK. That is rather poor behavior. There are some grea self help books on recognizing the behavior of the human ego and how to also recognize when it takes control of thoughts and behavior =)

Eckhardt Tolle is a well known author on the subject

Sounds more like you are twisting mine. None of this has anything to do with my ego, why would it? Making such a claim makes no sense, nor do your claims fit to what I had written. So maybe take a look in the mirror and stop insulting me.

If you are complaining about the "same tired campaigns", and "knowing the ending", then yes, you are complaining about the content of the game and also about the focus on WW2, so no, I'm not putting words into your mouth. Not only is is not true that the games all had the same scenarios and campaigns, see for examples the Grand Campaign mentioned above, but the game also allows to create the very stuff you ask for. If the developers spend more time creating fictional content, they wouldn't spend that time on delivering content that fits to what the core-game is about, which isn't an approach that makes a whole lot of sense for a game that is clearly meant to be about WW2. You also have to take into account who is buying games like these. If you market a game as a WW2-strategy game, customers won't be all that happy if you suddenly deviate too far from expectations. Games aren't just made for the fun of it, they are also made to earn a living, so there will always have to be a balance between delivering the classics and delivering something different.

I think I also made it clear in my post above that having some different routes to explore that aren't quite as common in WW2-games would be nice, as would be further stuff like the Grand Campaign, which was amazing. "Historically plausible" scenarios are also interesting, as they open up the paths for more variation in campaigns. That even allows for more fictional stuff, e.g. what happens if the Germans somehow had managed to successfully counter and destroy the Soviet attack near Stalingrad? But asking a recently released WW2-game to move away from its core-content right away seems rather far-fetched.

SineMora wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 12:37 pm

Donvegardo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 12:33 pm - quickly save and load if the attack was not good enough. I perfected this so thatit only took a couple of seconds load and try again. I know I am not the only one doing this, haha

You do realise the main reason the undo feature works the way it does is to cut down on save scumming (because the devs realise players like you will do that anyway)? Just set it to unlimited undos and 100% RNG and have perfect rolls for every combat if that's what you want.

Thanks a lot. I discovered this and it's very convenient.

It might be a nice immersive touch if the amphibious tanks like the Soviet T-38 and T-40 actually had a dedicated amphibious movement type or a special trait that gives them an instrinsic ability for "easier minor river crossing" (independent of the second bonus ability of the "Master of Blitzkrieg" commander trait and WITHOUT any bridging capability for other land units).

Also, I would like to see a mouse-over tooltip added in the unit list displayed in the victory screen, that allows to not only see if (and how many) heroes are attached a unit, but also the actual bonuses they provide. (Might be nice to re-think their affiliation to a particular unit at that point, if you found them to be rather ineffective in battle).

I suppose the medal/award distribution system is hardcoded – it would be great if those were moddable and expandable (to other nations as well).

...and: flying boat recon planes!

Hi,

Here are a few ideas for PC2 which hopefully haven't been said before:

1. Artillery casualties vs infantry "density". What I mean by this is that artillery shots should do more damage (not suppression) against infantry, especially when there are more of them in the target hex. The damage is too low and I believe it should be increased (or give us a perk like "Precision strike" which converts artillery suppression into damage), but the amount by which this should happen could depend on the number of target infantry units. For example, an artillery will do more damage (and suppression) against a strength 20 infantry, less against a strength 15 one, even less against a strength 10, etc. The more infantry you have in a hex, the easier it should be to kill more of them.

2. Allow us to permanently change AA guns into AT ones instead of resetting this every time they move. It doesn't really seem realistic (i.e. can't imagine anyone doing that in war time).

3. Buff AA guns a bit. Right now they seem way too expensive (prestige and core slot-wise), and getting additional fighters is probably better. My idea is to reduce core slots by around 25% and prestige by 50%, OR drastically increase the actual kills they inflict on low-flying aircraft (and maybe remove the perk related to this). Most AA guns were quite good against low altitude planes and quite useless against high altitude ones (which were mostly strategic bombers). I know that these have higher ground defense than the other planes in the game, but the AA guns don't really kill the others as well as they should. Also, the german Flak 8.8/41 (and some of the allied guns too) was able to reach the higher altitudes quite easily (there were even systems that allowed for precision shots). I'd go as far as not even allowing suppression from the bad AA guns against high-altitude planes, since their bullets didn't even reach.

4. Anti-tank guns don't really seem to be needed currently (unless you're defending), which is kind of sad. To buff them a bit (and the better tanks, with longer guns), maybe increase their range to 2? Or make use of (i.e. create an actual game mechanic for) the camouflage and actually allow first-strike shots with ATs when attacking. I do understand that the point of an AT gun is to hide in the bushes and wait for a tank to get near - but this means they shouldn't really be revealed before firing or ambushing someone (so my idea is something like this: you move an AT at least 1 empty tile away from an enemy to activate 'camouflage'; next turn, you attack it with 'first strike' (either by moving near it, or it having moved near you).

5. Angles of attack. If an enemy unit is hit from behind or from the sides, it should take more damage than being hit in the front. This could eventually lead to implementing armor zones for vehicles (e.g. a tank could have 16 ground defense in front, 10 on the back and 12 on the sides). Since the map is hexagonal, there could be 1 front, 1 back and 4 side tiles. Some tanks even had better side/back armor than front one. Infantry could probably do with two different defense values (back = lowest, front and sides = highest).

6. Make units hit each-other at the same time and create "First strike" and "Negate first strike" heroes, units and battle conditions.

7. Weather system seems kind of rigged currently, because towards the end of scenarios it starts giving you rain/clouds, just when you actually need it most to be clear. Coincidence?

8. Create the idea of "support commanders", giving the whole army certain passive buffs, or activating some for a number of turns. For example: choose an artillery specialist commander which could bombard 1-2 target tiles for a few turns when called to do so.

9. Nerf the encirclement mechanic and maybe some of the negative perks that are too harsh

Important EDIT: - one more thing I really hate: WHY do we have to pay 10000 prestige to unlock the alternate path in the campaign??? Seriously, why do you gate players this way? What is there to gain out of it? Because it only makes you NOT play for fun since you know you're forced to gather that prestige....just to unlock something fun. What will be next? in-game microtransactions so we can play even more alternate campaigns?! Come on... You didn't even give us more alternate campaigns (since, as someone else said, you're probably waiting to milk us, in PC1 style, with many overpriced DLCs...). Too bad, really.


Thanks

- Currently, if you capture an airfield when it is raining, you destroy the planes on them. I'd like it a lot of if you would capture those planes instead.
- Flying over AA should trigger an ambush kind of attack at half strength or something like that. That should make it more interesting to a) scout enemy positions and b) defend your own.
- Recon planes should have phased movement AND have some combat potential. They should just be flying scouts. Not great at killing, but their ability is next to useless because they just don't get xp. If they get attacked, they get killed.

- At higher difficulties, naval battles are something of a joke. It is a pure rock, paper and scissors affair which just doesn't translate to a fun experience. I can win the naval fights, but it misses a lot of depth because there really is only one way that works. Kill the destroyers with capital ships, kill the capital ships with submarines and bombers and just run away with your destroyers because they can't do anything other than valiantly die. (Also, the AI really needs to learn to kill: it rarely finishes lame ducks, instead it seems to go for full hp ships. This makes naval battles easy affairs despite the insane power differences.)

- All units should have named commanders. At a prestige/xp cost one might decorate them or rank them up. Perhaps one might even tie it to the hero system. Just a bit of immersion and/or roleplay.

Crusader2010 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:31 pm
3. Buff AA guns a bit. Right now they seem way too expensive (prestige and core slot-wise), and getting additional fighters is probably better. My idea is to reduce core slots by around 25% and prestige by 50%, OR drastically increase the actual kills they inflict on low-flying aircraft (and maybe remove the perk related to this). Most AA guns were quite good against low altitude planes and quite useless against high altitude ones (which were mostly strategic bombers). I know that these have higher ground defense than the other planes in the game, but the AA guns don't really kill the others as well as they should. Also, the german Flak 8.8/41 (and some of the allied guns too) was able to reach the higher altitudes quite easily (there were even systems that allowed for precision shots). I'd go as far as not even allowing suppression from the bad AA guns against high-altitude planes, since their bullets didn't even reach.

4. Anti-tank guns don't really seem to be needed currently (unless you're defending), which is kind of sad.

Thanks

+1 for point 3 above. I think ground AA is a bit limp. I also think that level bombers are extremely limp - and like the idea of AA distinguishing different altitudes.

But -1 for point 4. The whole point of AT is that it is a defensive unit. Very important in human v human battles. Increasing range to 2 just so that it can be used better in attack would be a backwards step. Want to attack? That's what tanks or assault guns were for.....

I'll add one more. I think reinforcing with experienced troops is too expensive. In truth, in the multiplayer games I am playing, it doesn't really make sense to spend the extra, and as a result units gradually grind down towards 0*. I think this is a shame. Can the formula that calculates experienced troop reinforcement cost be tweaked to be a bit less savage?

Thanks