Slitherine

Prestige is very tricky to balance because the devs don't want to lock inexperienced players in a death spiral... still, I don't consider myself a top player and always accumulate an enormous treasury. Some of you proposed changes are good ideas, there are many things that could be done... I'll add some of my own:

- Have heroes *drain* prestige instead of giving it. Heroes are valuable assets to the High Command, even more valuable than equipment, it makes no sense you have to spend influence to field new tanks, and instead get more renowned for keeping experienced guys to yourself. It would also help getting rid of the "legendary" hero, who does nothing apart from trivializing the whole system.

- Add new, very expensive ways to spend prestige. Re-rolling the hero at the start of a mission. Buying an additional turn. Upgrading units with little stat bonuses, or experience stars. These thins should be *extremely* costly, and used as a special reward for players getting a lot of prestige, simulating their place as the top general of the nation. At the moment, you just sit on top of this immense mountain of renown and can't do anything with that. I guess it would be useful in case there are political elections:)

Xenos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:22 pm Have heroes *drain* prestige instead of giving it.

That's an interesting thought and a good idea. The best heroes like Zero Slots or Double Fire come with a minus 10 or 20 Prestige per turn. That would definitely put a unique spin on super heroes. After all... you got to pay to play

R2G2 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:07 am

Xenos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:22 pm Have heroes *drain* prestige instead of giving it.

That's an interesting thought and a good idea. The best heroes like Zero Slots or Double Fire come with a minus 10 or 20 Prestige per turn. That would definitely put a unique spin on super heroes. After all... you got to pay to play

Prediction: would be hated intensely by 99,99% of all players.

nexusno2000 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:01 am

R2G2 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:07 am

Xenos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:22 pm Have heroes *drain* prestige instead of giving it.

That's an interesting thought and a good idea. The best heroes like Zero Slots or Double Fire come with a minus 10 or 20 Prestige per turn. That would definitely put a unique spin on super heroes. After all... you got to pay to play

Prediction: would be hated intensely by 99,99% of all players.

because they are accustomed to infinite prestige. But that's just a resource with no meaning, so less strategical depth and a simpler game overall. I don't even see it like a design choice, it's somewhat of a cheat embedded in the normal difficulty settings. Just like playing Starcraft with infinite Vespene.

Xenos wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:11 pm

nexusno2000 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:01 am

R2G2 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:07 am

That's an interesting thought and a good idea. The best heroes like Zero Slots or Double Fire come with a minus 10 or 20 Prestige per turn. That would definitely put a unique spin on super heroes. After all... you got to pay to play

Prediction: would be hated intensely by 99,99% of all players.

because they are accustomed to infinite prestige. But that's just a resource with no meaning, so less strategical depth and a simpler game overall. I don't even see it like a design choice, it's somewhat of a cheat embedded in the normal difficulty settings. Just like playing Starcraft with infinite Vespene.

If heroes cost prestige: I'd only keep the good ones and/or capture a few more enemy units.

Solves nothing.

PC2 has infinite variations on how to make the game more difficult.

Ever heard of house rules? Set yourself a prestige expenditure ceiling and be done with it.

How about adding some core-slot value to each hero for total masochists and enforce it on everyone?

Just leave this thread to rot - there is no prestige problem.

I also don't see a problem with prestige. It's a failed game mechanic, sure. That sometimes happens when a new version of a game evolves beyond its predecessors (although I'd argue it was a failed mechanic in Panzer Corps "1" as well). If what you're looking for is a scarcity mechanic for units, I'd argue that the Limited Supply option will (once fixed) provide that in a much more realistic and challenging way than "prestige" ever did. It puts you in the position of having to worry about casualties and having to minimize casualties for the same reason real officers care about those things: because any casualty is a unit that can't fight in the next battle. That is so much better than "prestige" as a concept that I can't see any merit in trying to rescue the prestige mechanic.

Well, I find surprising to read in the same sentence "there is no prestige problem" and "it's a failed mechanic".
For sure, the "Limited Supply" option could be a very good anwser in this matter (I haven't tested it yet).

@brumleek once again, I know PzC2 offers a lot of ways to increase difficulty (and I thank again the devs for that), but that's not the point.
What is disturbing me is that while prestige was something you had to manage in the "base game", it is a completly useless parameter in the AO series. Unless you twist the game so much that it doesn't even look like PzC2 anymore.

Trepko wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 9:23 pm

What is disturbing me is that while prestige was something you had to manage in the "base game", it is a completly useless parameter in the AO series.

It was a quite useless ressource in the base game aswell. As a new player to pc2 i had prestige struggles, of course. But with tropihies and encirclements the tools to make prestige meaningless were delivered with the release ofpc2. And the better i got, the more prestige i was ableto collect even without mass encirclements/captures.

In AO prestige can be an issue, way more than in the base game. Most of my "wierd" special challenge/neg trait playthroughs failed due to a lack of prestige in SCW. But i consider mass encirclements and full supressed enemies very boring, its like fighting against training dummies, so i try to avoid this. In later AOs prestige becomes more and more meaningless, but there is a new ressource with commendation points and hidden chaches.

Trepko wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 9:23 pm Well, I find surprising to read in the same sentence "there is no prestige problem" and "it's a failed mechanic".

Not every failure should be repaired.

I have to make decisions at work about what ideas get built into software and what ideas don't. It's often a hard call, but sometimes it's an easy one. This is an easy one. The feature is a failure. There is no shame or blame to be had in that; it happens all the time and it's part of the process. It's just something that looked good or important in the design phase and turned out not to be good or important once it was implemented. This is pretty common; one of my jobs is to try to minimize this, but it can never be eliminated entirely. So then you ask: what do we do with this failed feature? Do we spend even more precious time and money trying to make it useful again, or do we leave it behind? Again, sometimes this is an easy call and sometimes hard. This time it's easy to my eyes.

Let's say you find a sock in the middle of the road. It has holes in it, it's dirty in ways that don't look cleanable, its mate is nowhere to be found. People talk endlessly about how we save the sock, but none of the proposals seem to go anywhere. Your friend pulls out a needle and thread and starts trying to repair the sock, to no avail. It's time to let the sock go. It's beyond saving and even if it could be saved the value of the sock is tiny compared to the effort that saving it would require; the amount of time spent already discussing the sock is worth more than the sock was even when it was new. To mirror the phrase pair you find surprising: there is no problem with this sock, and it's a failure.

I love your sock story

Trepko wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:56 pm I love your sock story

Ha ha, thanks. I'll have to try it out at work. It's an extreme example, but maybe a decent illustration.

brumleek wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:17 pm PC2 has infinite variations on how to make the game more difficult.

Ever heard of house rules? Set yourself a prestige expenditure ceiling and be done with it.

How about adding some core-slot value to each hero for total masochists and enforce it on everyone?

Just leave this thread to rot - there is no prestige problem.

well, I mean, by that logic they could give the Wehrmacht a Titan from WH40k Armageddon. No problem: just set the house rule of not using it. Some degree of difficulty customization is absolutely welcome, but if I have to balance the game myself from scratch then I'm not playing anymore, I'm engaging in game design.

Xenos wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:26 pm

brumleek wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:17 pm PC2 has infinite variations on how to make the game more difficult.

Ever heard of house rules? Set yourself a prestige expenditure ceiling and be done with it.

How about adding some core-slot value to each hero for total masochists and enforce it on everyone?

Just leave this thread to rot - there is no prestige problem.

well, I mean, by that logic they could give the Wehrmacht a Titan from WH40k Armageddon. No problem: just set the house rule of not using it. Some degree of difficulty customization is absolutely welcome, but if I have to balance the game myself from scratch then I'm not playing anymore, I'm engaging in game design.

Well this is exactly the way it is designed: Prestige should not be within the management part of this game, because this was what had caused the failure in PC1 GC, which went hard on prestige income and forced player to bank since 1939 to be able to have ANY prestige left around 1944, and empty prestige literally means the end of your campaign because there is nothing you can do to recover. That's the reason why in PC2 prestige has become so generous. If you want to manage that, set your house rules.

Xenos wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:26 pm well, I mean, by that logic they could give the Wehrmacht a Titan from WH40k Armageddon. No problem: just set the house rule of not using it.

But a Titan from WH40k is not exactly the same than infinite prestige.
Prestige doesnt win battles. Player do this. Give a new and unexperienced player who never finished PC2 on any difficulty 500k Prestige from start and he wont succeed on Generalissimus. House rules ar the best way to increase the fun you have, and some of the challenges and neg traits delivered later base on popular house rules.

I consider "encirclements" and deadly grasp as way to impicatful, so my "little" house rule is to avoid encirclements. Other players dislike some hero combos and avoid them. Good players will always have enough prestige. No matter what you change. Normal and new players will struggle hard.


Buuut the idea of prestige drowning heros would make a nice challnge mode or nice neg trait I would definetly try that one out

Xenos wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:26 pm

brumleek wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:17 pm PC2 has infinite variations on how to make the game more difficult.

Ever heard of house rules? Set yourself a prestige expenditure ceiling and be done with it.

How about adding some core-slot value to each hero for total masochists and enforce it on everyone?

Just leave this thread to rot - there is no prestige problem.

well, I mean, by that logic they could give the Wehrmacht a Titan from WH40k Armageddon. No problem: just set the house rule of not using it. Some degree of difficulty customization is absolutely welcome, but if I have to balance the game myself from scratch then I'm not playing anymore, I'm engaging in game design.

Now you made me want to play that flawed, but oh so fun little game

VirgilInTheSKY wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:01 pm

Xenos wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:26 pm

brumleek wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:17 pm PC2 has infinite variations on how to make the game more difficult.

Ever heard of house rules? Set yourself a prestige expenditure ceiling and be done with it.

How about adding some core-slot value to each hero for total masochists and enforce it on everyone?

Just leave this thread to rot - there is no prestige problem.

well, I mean, by that logic they could give the Wehrmacht a Titan from WH40k Armageddon. No problem: just set the house rule of not using it. Some degree of difficulty customization is absolutely welcome, but if I have to balance the game myself from scratch then I'm not playing anymore, I'm engaging in game design.

Well this is exactly the way it is designed: Prestige should not be within the management part of this game, because this was what had caused the failure in PC1 GC, which went hard on prestige income and forced player to bank since 1939 to be able to have ANY prestige left around 1944, and empty prestige literally means the end of your campaign because there is nothing you can do to recover. That's the reason why in PC2 prestige has become so generous. If you want to manage that, set your house rules.

So why does it still exist? It's a trap mechanic. You look at it and say, "yeah, I need to manage my prestige to keep my army running", but that isn't actually true because prestige is pretty much infinite. It makes some heroes (legendary), some traits (liberator) and some playstyles (rushing to the objectives to maximize the prestige bonus) completely useless on anything but the highest difficulty level (and then, some other traits and strategies become mandatory). Just keep prestige as a score counter with no functional value and balance the game through core slots and equipment numbers, that' would have been a better way of solving the PzC1 problem.

Bee1976 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 11:38 pm

Xenos wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:26 pm well, I mean, by that logic they could give the Wehrmacht a Titan from WH40k Armageddon. No problem: just set the house rule of not using it.

But a Titan from WH40k is not exactly the same than infinite prestige.
Prestige doesnt win battles. Player do this. Give a new and unexperienced player who never finished PC2 on any difficulty 500k Prestige from start and he wont succeed on Generalissimus. House rules ar the best way to increase the fun you have, and some of the challenges and neg traits delivered later base on popular house rules.

I consider "encirclements" and deadly grasp as way to impicatful, so my "little" house rule is to avoid encirclements. Other players dislike some hero combos and avoid them. Good players will always have enough prestige. No matter what you change. Normal and new players will struggle hard.


Buuut the idea of prestige drowning heros would make a nice challnge mode or nice neg trait I would definetly try that one out

The problem with prestige is that it makes casualties irrelevant. So in some ways it win battles. Logically, the idea would be that if I, as a general, keep losing men and equipment in droves I would quickly lose High Command trust and wouldn't be able to ask for more reinforcements. Indeed, it makes no sense to give stuff to the very guy who just wastes it. This isn't the case in the game because prestige is infinite. So that's a whole historical, I would say fundamental aspect of warfare removed from the game. Think of Operation Mercury, the battle of Crete. Germany won, but it took so many casualties that the Fallschirmjäger couldn't be employed in any other large-scale operation for the rest of the war. In PzCII terms, something like that can't happen: even if every single one of your paratrooper units is reduced to 1 strength, you can just press a button, spend a bottomless resource and have them battle-worthy the very next turn. With undiminished experience to boot.

I mean, the game is a beer & pretzel wargame and we all know that, it's not like I'm asking for Gary Grigsby's level of simulation. But casualties being meaningless is very clearly a problem.

Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:20 pmThe problem with prestige is that it makes casualties irrelevant. So in some ways it win battles. Logically, the idea would be that if I, as a general, keep losing men and equipment in droves I would quickly lose High Command trust and wouldn't be able to ask for more reinforcements. Indeed, it makes no sense to give stuff to the very guy who just wastes it. This isn't the case in the game because prestige is infinite. So that's a whole historical, I would say fundamental aspect of warfare removed from the game. Think of Operation Mercury, the battle of Crete. Germany won, but it took so many casualties that the Fallschirmjäger couldn't be employed in any other large-scale operation for the rest of the war. In PzCII terms, something like that can't happen: even if every single one of your paratrooper units is reduced to 1 strength, you can just press a button, spend a bottomless resource and have them battle-worthy the very next turn. With undiminished experience to boot.

I mean, the game is a beer & pretzel wargame and we all know that, it's not like I'm asking for Gary Grigsby's level of simulation. But casualties being meaningless is very clearly a problem.

You are operating from the opinion that prestige is infinite for everyone. That's simply not true at all. Prestige is set in such a way that no one is left behind. That means that those who are really good at playing the game need to set the rules according to how they want to play, while those who are new, not particularly good at the game, or simply too casual of a player to make things run well, still have a chance to succeed. That is completely normal for the majority of strategy games you can find. Games are never balanced to fit to those who are really good at it, they are balanced so regular players don't rage quit.

Maybe some more tools could be added to influence all the settings, it's not like it would be impossible to adjust the level of prestige you can gain on a scale. Though PC2 in general is already overflowing with options you can set.

Besides, reinforcements were send where they were necessary to accomplish the stated goals. Stalingrad got an endless stream of them, even though soldiers where dying in droves. And while that wasn't the fault of Paulus, it still is proof that soldiers went where the leaders wanted to see success. It's not like you had many leaders who constantly drained their manpower. For the most part, casualties often rose among those units which were particularly good, as they were constantly pushed into important battles.

Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:20 pm
The problem with prestige is that it makes casualties irrelevant.

Indeed, but there some neg traits that do exactly this. Players can choose to play that way, that casualties matter. "green army" "limited stock" delayed reinforcements for example

Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:20 pm This isn't the case in the game because prestige is infinite.

Well, believe me it isnt
There are a lot of "evil" trait/challenge combinations that will make you bleed dry prestigewise in SCW, i tried some of them. But you are right, players can make prestige infinity. But thats a personal choice like "/setany xx"

Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:20 pm So that's a whole historical, I would say fundamental aspect of warfare removed from the game. Think of Operation Mercury, the battle of Crete. Germany won, but it took so many casualties that the Fallschirmjäger couldn't be employed in any other large-scale operation for the rest of the war.

Indeed. But i cant imagine a good way to rebalance prestige without punishing the new and normal players. Considering Steam achievements, the majority of player just want to enjoy the game on a medicore difficulty lvl.

Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:20 pm In PzCII terms, something like that can't happen: even if every single one of your paratrooper units is reduced to 1 strength, you can just press a button, spend a bottomless resource and have them battle-worthy the very next turn. With undiminished experience to boot.

Yes and no. Even without the mentioned traits/challenges above, playing so wasteful that you have to replenish all paratroopers, it will cost you 2 turns without any action to bring them back to duty. And in my opinion, player that play that way and so wasteful will experience hard struggles to win the mssion.

Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:20 pm I mean, the game is a beer & pretzel wargame and we all know that, it's not like I'm asking for Gary Grigsby's level of simulation. But casualties being meaningless is very clearly a problem.

Hehe ouch. Im still thinking of buying war in the east II
But casualties beeing meaningless is a player choice, you can change that with all the tools the game delivers. Even without houserules. Maybe there should be more options to tune that, but i prefer options above restrictions.