Slitherine

Rudankort wrote:

Tarrak wrote:I don't understand what is meant with:

- Soft cap rules were changed a bit. It no longer calculates unspent prestige and units in reserve at all.

In beta 3, unspent prestige and units in reserve were counted with 0.5 coefficient, when calculating total player's prestige. This is no longer the case. As long as prestige remains "passive" (sits in reserve or in the bank) it does not reduce your earnings.

Doesn't it pretty much totally defy the concept of prestige cap in the first place? I can have now loads of prestige saved up and will still receive full reward from current missions won't i?

Tarrak wrote: Doesn't it pretty much totally defy the concept of prestige cap in the first place? I can have now loads of prestige saved up and will still receive full reward from current missions won't i?

Not exactly. If you deploy nothing but OS heavy tanks and jet fighters, that will make it so that you earn very little prestige. If you deploy a more "historical" core, then you will earn more.

I think it's a good compromise. It doesn't penalize a player for having prestige, but rather, a player who uses super cores.

Yep. I have a vague idea to use unspent prestige as player's score at the end of the campaign. With these rules, you would need to earn as much as possible, and with as little units as possible, to get the highest score. This change is kinda step in this direction. And I did not want to penalize players keeping many units in reserve either. Some people even keep units there for nostalgic reasons.

On the topic of some units gaining experience faster than others, perhaps one way to increase certain unit classes experience is if they merely SURVIVE the scenario. While gaining experience in battle is obviously paramount, infantry units, and perhaps some armor and aircraft types should get a small bump (maybe 10pts for some units, 15pts for others) by surviving each successive scenario if they were deployed on the map (not if they were just in reserve). Just a thought.

Rudankort wrote:Yep. I have a vague idea to use unspent prestige as player's score at the end of the campaign. With these rules, you would need to earn as much as possible, and with as little units as possible, to get the highest score. This change is kinda step in this direction. And I did not want to penalize players keeping many units in reserve either. Some people even keep units there for nostalgic reasons.

Maybe I'm a spend-thrift, but I almost never have loads of reserve prestige from scenario to scenario. Playing on FM, and between elite upgrades, and equipment upgrades, I'm squeezing by most of the time. I guess it just boils down to playing style.

Zhivago wrote:On the topic of some units gaining experience faster than others, perhaps one way to increase certain unit classes experience is if they merely SURVIVE the scenario. While gaining experience in battle is obviously paramount, infantry units, and perhaps some armor and aircraft types should get a small bump (maybe 10pts for some units, 15pts for others) by surviving each successive scenario if they were deployed on the map (not if they were just in reserve). Just a thought.

Good call, e.g. bridging units should get experience not only for combat, maybe for every unit they ferry across?

Borsook wrote:

Zhivago wrote:On the topic of some units gaining experience faster than others, perhaps one way to increase certain unit classes experience is if they merely SURVIVE the scenario. While gaining experience in battle is obviously paramount, infantry units, and perhaps some armor and aircraft types should get a small bump (maybe 10pts for some units, 15pts for others) by surviving each successive scenario if they were deployed on the map (not if they were just in reserve). Just a thought.

Good call, e.g. bridging units should get experience not only for combat, maybe for every unit they ferry across?

How else are they going to get experience? I have advocated some kind of combining of the bridging unit into a more all-encompassing combat engineer, capable of building bridges, blowing bridges, building entrenchments, laying minefields, building airstrips, cutting roads through forest terrain, etc. Maybe Panzer Corps II will give the bridging unit more to do (and more ways to be relevant).

Zhivago wrote:

Borsook wrote:

Zhivago wrote:On the topic of some units gaining experience faster than others, perhaps one way to increase certain unit classes experience is if they merely SURVIVE the scenario. While gaining experience in battle is obviously paramount, infantry units, and perhaps some armor and aircraft types should get a small bump (maybe 10pts for some units, 15pts for others) by surviving each successive scenario if they were deployed on the map (not if they were just in reserve). Just a thought.

Good call, e.g. bridging units should get experience not only for combat, maybe for every unit they ferry across?

How else are they going to get experience? I have advocated some kind of combining of the bridging unit into a more all-encompassing combat engineer, capable of building bridges, blowing bridges, building entrenchments, laying minefields, building airstrips, cutting roads through forest terrain, etc. Maybe Panzer Corps II will give the bridging unit more to do (and more ways to be relevant).

hmmm well the answer to your question is in the message your quoting. So again - every unit that crosses a river on a bridge created by the unit could give it a very little exp, after all engineers get experience for destroying mines. Alternatively they could get it for just surviving. Whichever is chosen, it would help avoid a situation when a bridging unit after 5 years of service has zero exp.

Remember, this is an old program which is difficult to work with.

Perhaps, every time the bridge unit enter a river hex can be implemented easier.

Anyhow, I use my bridge engineers in combat, except the British tank unit which can not fight. I use it to block in order to gain experience.

Experience:
I also try to get my bridge engineers involved in combat to gather some experience. Not a main focus of course, but when there are enemy unit to finish I try to send in the bridge engineers, especially if theye have halftracks they can fight after moving a long distance.

Game Score:
having some sort of performances rating would certainly improve the game experience, and add some replay value.
As it currently works, prestige does'nt give a very good evaluation of performances. As previously mentionned, some players keep a number of units in their core even if they don't use them so much, while they could disband them for extra pp.
Note than you can also disband SE units, while you are under the SE units limit you are still eligible to get a fresh new SE units (I used this in GC east at 25%). Suppose I get a SE unit after scenario 1 in a campaign, I disband it for pp, I might get it back after scenario 4, while some unlucky player might only get his first SE unit on scenario 4. In the end I get some extra pp for "free", and it was only luck based
Prestige is also very much, difficulty level dependant. Currently players using the lower difficulty levels will have better scores, unless your intentions, are to get a separate score list for each level, I think it should be the opposite, I.e. playing at harder levels should result in better score.

You can have a separate score value, and only display it on the beige new turn pop up with the mission objectives, and again at scenario end
Some things I'll consider for scoring: Difficulty level, main objectives, secondary objectives, turn left before limits, casualties taken, casualties made...

Delta66 wrote:Experience:
I also try to get my bridge engineers involved in combat to gather some experience. Not a main focus of course, but when there are enemy unit to finish I try to send in the bridge engineers, especially if theye have halftracks they can fight after moving a long distance.

Yes, you can do that. But that's a workaround, esp. since we get exp for destroying mines, which is definitely not combat, just uses the same mechanics.

BTW a small workaround would be to add a '43 version of the bridging units.

Not really a bug, rather a side effect, I post here, because Rudankort asked to have everything reported in the same place.

A tricky point, I rename my units to keep tack of the specifics heroes effects, My 11th Hussars unit is currently renamed
"11th Hussars, A1 D2", standing for a hero with Attack +1 and another with Defense +2.

When such a unit is awarded a medal, I get the following text:

"For outstanding service the 11th Hussars, A1 D2, was awarded
with the Distinguished Conduct Medal"

It would be cleaner to suppress the "A1 D2" in that case, However I understand that it is hard for the game engine to understand the meaning of the various parts of the name. Unless there was a separate field for the name proper and another for the heroes descriptions.

Delta66 wrote:Not really a bug, rather a side effect, I post here, because Rudankort asked to have everything reported in the same place.

A tricky point, I rename my units to keep tack of the specifics heroes effects, My 11th Hussars unit is currently renamed
"11th Hussars, A1 D2", standing for a hero with Attack +1 and another with Defense +2.

When such a unit is awarded a medal, I get the following text:

"For outstanding service the 11th Hussars, A1 D2, was awarded
with the Distinguished Conduct Medal"

It would be cleaner to suppress the "A1 D2" in that case, However I understand that it is hard for the game engine to understand the meaning of the various parts of the name. Unless there was a separate field for the name proper and another for the heroes descriptions.

You can hover your mouse cursor over hero icon to know what effects he has... that says, what is your point? the game used your units name correctly, how else should it behave? If I name my unit "ada2421312412414312" then this is exactly what the game should use.

Not a serious issue at all for me. That why I celarly said it was not a bug proper, rather an aesthetic convenience.
However because of screen size 1366 x 768 I toggle the vertical infos bars off, to keep only the leftmost main panel. I only use the extra panels during initial scenarios deployement. I really need to know the heroes values during play, and the name doesn't matter so much for effective play. So it's the most convenient way I've found so far to easily have the heroes values just by selecting the unit on the play area.
I also know of other players who rename their units to accomodate for heroes.

I meant, you could have a unit name field, made of a name field plus a separate suffix field. And only print the revelant fields depending on circumstances.

Delta66 wrote:Not a serious issue at all for me. That why I celarly said it was not a bug proper, rather an aesthetic convenience.
However because of screen size 1366 x 768 I toggle the vertical infos bars off, to keep only the leftmost main panel. I only use the extra panels during initial scenarios deployement. I really need to know the heroes values during play, and the name doesn't matter so much for effective play. So it's the most convenient way I've found so far to easily have the heroes values just by selecting the unit on the play area.
I also know of other players who rename their units to accomodate for heroes.

I meant, you could have a unit name field, made of a name field plus a separate suffix field. And only print the revelant fields depending on circumstances.

So maybe the game should provide additional info about heroes, e.g. a tooltip when a cursor hovers over it on the map (although this should be settable in the options to avoid clutter). Adding some strange fields is a poor workaround, as still you have to name your units by hand and rename them when they get the next hero.

Dice Chess:
Not specific to Allied Corps but related to 1.0 Engine.

I have read precious few feedback on the dice chess cheat, so here's my two cents.

I have played GC east FM at 25% pp from 39 to late 42 so far (suspended for now, because of AC beta testing), with dice chess.
Early on in 1939 it feels much more like chess than dice, in effect you get the prediction most of the time and from time to time a few +1 or -1 shift.
Starting from 1940 the shift s are more common and having the prediction is less common.
Late in 1942 with OS units I have a few +2/-2 results but they are still fairly rare, but having exactly the prediction is much rarer now.
Pushing some units to strength 15 for testing, I had some +3/-3 results.

In a sense in the GC, it takes some time to feel different than chess and too reach the proper random effect, but if I think of the cheat code being used in the shorter stand alone games (Vanilla PC, AK and AC) campaigns, where units get OS and xp much faster it seems just right.

Overall I think it works well, by removing the most extreme cases of the RNG, while having enough randomness to foil the "perfect plans" of the chess mode.
It lacks the Wow! and Ouch! factors of the RNG, but it fits perfectly between RNG and Chess. Giving three significantly different feelings.
Probably my favourite mode so far.

Delta66 wrote:Dice Chess:
Not specific to Allied Corps but related to 1.0 Engine.

I have read precious few feedback on the dice chess cheat, so here's my two cents.

Thanks for feedback, indeed dice chess mode has not seen wide-spread use yet. It may change in 1.20 though, because in the new version this will be a UI option.

Delta66 wrote:Dice Chess:
Not specific to Allied Corps but related to 1.0 Engine.

I have read precious few feedback on the dice chess cheat, so here's my two cents.

I have played GC east FM at 25% pp from 39 to late 42 so far (suspended for now, because of AC beta testing), with dice chess.
Early on in 1939 it feels much more like chess than dice, in effect you get the prediction most of the time and from time to time a few +1 or -1 shift.
Starting from 1940 the shift s are more common and having the prediction is less common.
Late in 1942 with OS units I have a few +2/-2 results but they are still fairly rare, but having exactly the prediction is much rarer now.
Pushing some units to strength 15 for testing, I had some +3/-3 results.

In a sense in the GC, it takes some time to feel different than chess and too reach the proper random effect, but if I think of the cheat code being used in the shorter stand alone games (Vanilla PC, AK and AC) campaigns, where units get OS and xp much faster it seems just right.

Overall I think it works well, by removing the most extreme cases of the RNG, while having enough randomness to foil the "perfect plans" of the chess mode.
It lacks the Wow! and Ouch! factors of the RNG, but it fits perfectly between RNG and Chess. Giving three significantly different feelings.
Probably my favourite mode so far.

I can second this, I too play exclusively now with Dice Chess, normal mode is too random, making predictions fairly useless, chess takes away the suspense, this is perfect.

I actually dislike the 'chess' cheat. It is unrealistic & takes away from the gameplay IMO.

No one knows for sure what will happen in a combat situation.

Balla :0/

Rudankort wrote:

Delta66 wrote:Dice Chess:
Not specific to Allied Corps but related to 1.0 Engine.

I have read precious few feedback on the dice chess cheat, so here's my two cents.

Thanks for feedback, indeed dice chess mode has not seen wide-spread use yet. It may change in 1.20 though, because in the new version this will be a UI option.

Is there anywhere a list which cheats will find their way into options in 1.20?