The Prestige Problem

[gf85]

I'll suggest some "standing" prestige drain to get rid of those overinflated prestige, somethings like:

1. Hero rotation, trade a hero for a new random one, -20000 prestige
2. Prototype purchase, +5 stock for a existed prototype, -10000 prestige
3. Special training program, +1000 exp for an unit (can't train behind a certain value, like 50% of campaign exp cap), -10000 prestige
4. Intel gathering, reveal some part of the map at the beginning of next scenario, -5000 prestige

These should not be so op but can be useful (at least in my point of view).

[Kerensky]

Can you please identify the best commander traits and difficulty options to make Prestige a useful concept without destroying WWII strategy and tactics?

My personal tastes drift towards as few traits as possible and -80% prestige, (Panzers gliding over rivers or being able to neutralize the concept of enemy Zone of Control are definite reality breakers in my judgement) and maintaining a CORE with a huge amount of variety. IE have a large amount of different equipment, not only the best unit(s) of each type (One Pioniere, a few Wehr and Grenadier inf. One re-fielded KV1 Tank, a few Panzer IVs and Panzerjagers)
You have to remember, the ability to freely field German equipment in of itself is completely ahistorical. That's there to give players the freedom to play that way if they want. For the most history minded... even if you have unlimited German tanks and near unlimited Soviet tank captures because the 'mechanics' tell you that you are allowed to have them, this does not mean that you should have them. You should still have some Panzer IIC in Barbarossa (or you can use the 'new' Panzer IIC skin with the Toldi I, for some visual unit variety )

If you play -80% prestige, and don't engage with regularly capturing and forcing surrender of enemy units... you will die. Well actually, you'll be forced to hobble from basic objective to basic objective, never pushing for those extra bonus objectives and CPs. While technically playable and not 'game over return to main menu campaign ending defeat', I don't think the success of the new bonus objective systems stems from players NOT accomplishing at least a majority of these bonuses.

But I hardly consider this the norm, I would recognize that very few players know the game's mechanics as well as I do, or play it the way I enjoy it. From what I've seen of how I play vs various videos I've watched, it's clear I play at a much faster pace. Unless 'Arrogant' slows me down because I lose access to quick battle result previews, talk about slamming the breaks on speed playing ouch.

And besides, I feel like WW2 was a war of maneuver much more than WW1 which was a war of just total attrition. Many of the greatest victories of WW2 were ones of mass surrender of 100,000s of enemy soldiers, not mass slaughter Battle of the Somme style.

Battle of Kursk wasn't a German victory when they inflicted a million casualties on the Red Army, it was a failure because it didn't achieve huge encirclements and mass surrenders that were played on repeatedly in Russia during 1941.

[BaronVonKrieg]

I no longer agree that capture prestige is the problem.

Capture prestige is the primary way to stay afloat on Generalissimius. Without that income stream, and combined with other ways to make the highest difficulty mode even harder, I think -80% prestige very easily becomes unplayable. This is absolutely how I feel playing No Positive Traits Generalissimius + extra Challenge Modes enabled.

viewtopic.php?f=464&t=103021

I still haven't had time to finish my 1940 achievements, I have been stonewalled by this extreme difficulty mode for so long now (plus the need to work on stuff and not just play past DLC. )

i know this isn't the right topic thread but was wondering why wasn't there a Panzer IVA in Poland, like one off unit similar to Panzer 2A in Spain

[sakura006]

To be fair, you can have a huge prestige problem if you take slow reaction. Endless enemies will charge you, and you will have to frequently replace your units in the battlefield. That will quickly drain all your prestige. Furthermore, you can easily make this game unbeatable by selecting enough negative traits and special challenges. I really doubt if anyone can finish this game if they have slow reaction + ruthless + no heroes at highest difficulty. That being said, I don't think it is the right way to set up the difficulty level in this game. Some challenges simply take an entire system out of the equation. You face more challenges not by increasing enemy's power, but by crippling yourself. It is as if you are going to a battlefield without a gun, but using your bare hand. Slow reaction eliminates the retaliation system, ruthless eliminates the surrender system, and no heroes eliminates the hero system. You almost take half of the systems out of the ruleset. Of course that is going to be hellish for players. But what's the fun then? The truth is, the game is easy when all mechanics are there in the ruleset for an experienced player. So my advice is that you can add more challenges by increasing enemy's power. In special challenges, there are +5 strength to all enemy, uphill battle, and heroic showdown. These challenges does not cripple yourself, but power up your enemy. I believe you will have a prestige problem at some points.

Also, I would really hope dev could do a bit more work on the special challenges. For example, heroic showdown is a very good idea by itself. However, enemy usually don't get very useful heroes. Is it possible if dev can give pre-designed heroes to enemy instead of random heroes? Alternatively, the hero pool could be limited based on the type of the unit so that enemy will have a better chance to have a more useful hero. Also, currently enemy general doesn't have any traits. Is it possible to give them some general traits in the future?

[Snake97644]

I'll suggest some "standing" prestige drain to get rid of those overinflated prestige, somethings like:

1. Hero rotation, trade a hero for a new random one, -20000 prestige
2. Prototype purchase, +5 stock for a existed prototype, -10000 prestige
3. Special training program, +1000 exp for an unit (can't train behind a certain value, like 50% of campaign exp cap), -10000 prestige
4. Intel gathering, reveal some part of the map at the beginning of next scenario, -5000 prestige

These should not be so op but can be useful (at least in my point of view).

I would like something like this as well

[Jaimainsoyyo]

-Why not paying in every scenario for each Medal(5 prestige per turn)that your deployed units have? During the first stages of the campaign you don´t pay at all until you win a commendation, but as the game progress when you field an army plenty of units with 1,2,3 or even 5!!! Medals the drain could be significant.

-Why not paying for every single oil point your units use? (For instance 1 prestige for oil point used). Btw that could have two consecuences added to a constant or increasing drain of prestige, first the force composition would be more realistic with less all-mechanized armies and more mixed forces with infantry and artillery in wagons, second will encourage player to encircle and surrender enemy units more frecuently, because whenever you have encircled the enemy you don´t need to move anymore,therefore not wasting prestige burning more oil. Also that cost could be reduced or increased due to year of the scenario.

-Why not paying for every single ammo point your high caliber artillery units use? (For instance 10 prestige for ammo point used). If the ammo of artillery units over 160mm cost so much, perhaps people would use less 21cm/17cm artillery and more 150 or less artillery units and would think about killing that last point of conscripts using a full barrage of 21cm.

These suggestions imho would make using (purchasing cost won´t change) elite and/or mechanized units more expensive in prestige terms and could add more complexity to the selection of forces for the scenario. Players that want to hoard prestige points would have to consider if fielding the high skilled/promoted/mechanized/high caliber artillery killing machine would be something always necessary.

[NightPhoenix]

Still like how these "do something about prestige" topics keep coming up. For those talking about -80% prestige option - it doesn't exist! There is a -80% & +20% enemy accuracy option, don't forget to mention you are forced to beef up the enemy damage output, even if you don't like that.

Again i put my case for a slider - that will allow people to adjust prestige however they feel comfortable without having to implement challenges that they might not like or care for. Why do people go through such difficult hoops and adjustments when you can have a simple solution that works for every problem with prestige.

[Kerensky]

Still like how these "do something about prestige" topics keep coming up. For those talking about -80% prestige option - it doesn't exist! There is a -80% & +20% enemy accuracy option, don't forget to mention you are forced to beef up the enemy damage output, even if you don't like that.

Again i put my case for a slider - that will allow people to adjust prestige however they feel comfortable without having to implement challenges that they might not like or care for. Why do people go through such difficult hoops and adjustments when you can have a simple solution that works for every problem with prestige.

And they will continue to come up even if your idea ever comes to pass because you haven't actually solved anything by suggestion yet another optional game system.

Because not everyone interacts with every system, and a lot of expectation for fixing issues is actually for correcting issues that players specifically want to play. Example, players using traits that inflate capture rewards thinking surrender should be worth less. While some people who very clearly have enormous prestige stockpiles are not playing on -80% difficulty and are choosing to skip prestige sink events. As does hero discussion continue to come up despite the addition of several features that includes a.... wait for it... completely configurable slider setting.

In fact, I would bet they haven't implemented it because it will just cause even more harm than good. How is a player supposed to make an informed decision about how much they should set their 'prestige' slider to? Tying % amounts to difficulty modes is very clear: game is gonna get tougher as you move up the difficulties. Whereas a prestige slider on someone who is playing on default difficulty can ruin their experience if they set the slider too low without knowing how much harm it's doing.

A player only knows they have way too much prestige after the fact, not before they begin a campaign.

[FunPolice749]

And they will continue to come up even if your idea ever comes to pass because you haven't actually solved anything by suggestion yet another optional game system.

Because not everyone interacts with every system, and a lot of expectation for fixing issues is actually for correcting issues that players specifically want to play. Example, players using traits that inflate capture rewards thinking surrender should be worth less. While some people who very clearly have enormous prestige stockpiles are not playing on -80% difficulty and are choosing to skip prestige sink events. As does hero discussion continue to come up despite the addition of several features that includes a.... wait for it... completely configurable slider setting.

In fact, I would bet they haven't implemented it because it will just cause even more harm than good. How is a player supposed to make an informed decision about how much they should set their 'prestige' slider to? Tying % amounts to difficulty modes is very clear: game is gonna get tougher as you move up the difficulties. Whereas a prestige slider on someone who is playing on default difficulty can ruin their experience if they set the slider too low without knowing how much harm it's doing.

A player only knows they have way too much prestige after the fact, not before they begin a campaign.

Here's an idea for trait. I know it wouldn't please everybody but it would be a trait that people with 100K prestige might find a good pick to make the game tougher.
A trait called "Limited Stockpile" which gives you +2 trait points but caps your prestige at 10K max.

[Bee1976]

Here's an idea for trait. I know it wouldn't please everybody but it would be a trait that people with 100K prestige might find a good pick to make the game tougher.
A trait called "Limited Stockpile" which gives you +2 trait points but caps your prestige at 10K max.

10k is a huge amount. And people will start to "bank" reserve units for 2 "free points". But the idea of a negative trait is nice. I would offer the possibility to lower the prestige income via trait if people really wanna have that.
Something like "Capture equipment wont reward prestige" - 2 or 3 points
So ppl who like playing with mass encirclements and deadly grasp cann still do that and even capture nice equipment, but without gaining tons of prestige.

I think the easier solution is just raising your difficulty level. genralissimus, no power 4/trophies traits, arrogant and that -5 turns challenge and prestige becomes a struggle again
i had to call my latest playthrough, with this setup, bad heroes and that entranchment neg trait.
I was able to win some missions but now my core is broken and in no shape for further duty

[scott_mathieson]

i dont see a 10k limit working, if you are going above that you and play same way you will bounce around 10k all the time and that is plenty barring absolute disasters.

often thought an idea worth looking at is you get no prestige for capturing equipment but can use it for free, extra equipment you dont need you could trade in for prestige so you have choice of using the gear or getting prestige for it the trade in could be linked to difficulty level so you get full value on colonel 20% on generallisimus maybe

[NightPhoenix]

And they will continue to come up even if your idea ever comes to pass because you haven't actually solved anything by suggestion yet another optional game system.
Because not everyone interacts with every system, and a lot of expectation for fixing issues is actually for correcting issues that players specifically want to play.

The idea that you haven't actually solved anything because not 100% of your userbase uses it doesn't hold weight, i'm confident that only a small amount of players uses any individal measure to make the game more difficult though the additional challenges tab. Wheras a slider is such a broad measure it would likely reach a larger audience than, say a challenge that makes enemy units stronger every single turn. More so because it's customizable to a players own liking. I can't customize anything about those challenges but on/off.

Example, players using traits that inflate capture rewards thinking surrender should be worth less. While some people who very clearly have enormous prestige stockpiles are not playing on -80% difficulty and are choosing to skip prestige sink events. As does hero discussion continue to come up despite the addition of several features that includes a.... wait for it... completely configurable slider setting.

Wouldn't surrender be worth less by having such a slider? My main contention again (and you seem to ignore this) there is no -80% prestige difficulty but a -80% prestige and +20% enemy accuracy difficulty. I choose not to play on Generallisimus exactly because i don't like that enemy bonus. Not because of the prestige. Maybe other people feel the same - not sure. Not sure why you bring up something unrelated like heroes, as thats a completely different discussion all together, except as an example that people are complaining?

completely configurable slider setting.

Not sure what this means.... is there a slider for heroes? I know you can turn them on/off.....

In fact, I would bet they haven't implemented it because it will just cause even more harm than good. How is a player supposed to make an informed decision about how much they should set their 'prestige' slider to? Tying % amounts to difficulty modes is very clear: game is gonna get tougher as you move up the difficulties. Whereas a prestige slider on someone who is playing on default difficulty can ruin their experience if they set the slider too low without knowing how much harm it's doing.

A player only knows they have way too much prestige after the fact, not before they begin a campaign.

Maybe they can make an informed decision because they can see how much prestige is deducted for each generic difficulty level? I know the medium difficulty = -30% prestige hardest -80% prestige. Players know just as little about which difficulty level suits them before playing on generic difficulty as they would with a slider - but you have the same information to have a rough estimate. You can just as much ruin your experience by playing on too high/low a difficulty level. I would even contest it's very likely people use the slider - after testing playing the game on a generic difficulty and thus are able to make a better informed choice on how much prestige they want to add/reduce in their game. That slider (along with sliders for enemy unit strenght&turns) didn't prevent PzC1 from becoming a huge success, so it problably won't harm as badly as you suggest.

[Vorskl]

Wouldn't surrender be worth less by having such a slider? My main contention again (and you seem to ignore this) there is no -80% prestige difficulty but a -80% prestige and +20% enemy accuracy difficulty. I choose not to play on Generallisimus exactly because i don't like that enemy bonus. Not because of the prestige. Maybe other people feel the same - not sure. Not sure why you bring up something unrelated like heroes, as thats a completely different discussion all together, except as an example that people are complaining?

I am fully aligned with you and made a separate petition topic for this. Slitherline needs to de-couple economics and warfare difficulty settings, that's an easy fix (just add another slider and relink the code) but will solve A LOT of complains and let everyone customize the difficulty to their taste.
I dislike generous prestige, hence generalissimus difficulty is fine as it allows for a good simulation of Wehrmacht resource limitations. But -20% accuracy kills it - we're not playing Belgian troops who built houses in front the Eban-Emael or would not open boxes with riffle ammo as it was too expensive (read that story... IMHO the least competent army in WWII); German troops up until 1942 were probably the most trained (until WWI veterans and intrawar-trained troops were still alive).

For those who wants to emulate dilution of Wehrmacht skill 1942 onwards, use only green replacements + traits that limit replacements

[R2G2]

I am fully aligned with you and made a separate petition topic for this. Slitherline needs to de-couple economics and warfare difficulty settings, that's an easy fix (just add another slider and relink the code) but will solve A LOT of complains and let everyone customize the difficulty to their taste...

The slider will only work if it also affects Prestige Surrender points. The current difficulty settings have no impact on Prestige gained by forcing a Surrender. This why most players can select Generallisimus at -80% and still find themselves with excessive amounts of Prestige. This is also why players are requesting a negative commander trait that affects Surrender Prestige gain.

Here is an example with actual numbers that I've mentioned in one of the numerous posts about Prestige issues.

SCW Seville has 625 Prestige Flag capture points (not including the flags beyond the mine fields). There are 7,590 Prestige Surrender points of deployed units (this does not include spawn units which can increase it 1,000+). This also doesn’t include Strongholds/Bunkers.

It's obvious to see based on these numbers where the imbalance is coming from. And the difficulty setting will never change the 7K+ amount of Prestige Surrender points. Certain challenges and traits make the issue worse like David vs. Goliath by increasing the Prestige value of all enemy units.