Slitherine

Xerkis wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote: a unit w a stat of one wouldnt get any benefit until it was 5 bars (1*1.50) Of course then it would leap to 2 at one bar and never change no matter how more experiance it gets.

... and this is what the combat predictions are showing too.
experiance doesn't matter for infantry -- as far as gaining the initiative.

If thats the case , same for other low starting infantry stats like hard attack values.... Kinda make sence though, Even elite veterens of light infantry shouldnt have better anti tank power that uh, a tank unit:)

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Xerkis wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote: a unit w a stat of one wouldnt get any benefit until it was 5 bars (1*1.50) Of course then it would leap to 2 at one bar and never change no matter how more experiance it gets.

... and this is what the combat predictions are showing too.
experiance doesn't matter for infantry -- as far as gaining the initiative.

If thats the case , same for other low starting infantry stats like hard attack values.... Kinda make sence though, Even elite veterens of light infantry shouldnt have better anti tank power that uh, a tank unit:)

Absolutely.
I think all of this this lends even more credence to the, don’t bother wasting precious prestige on elite replacements for infantry philosophy. At least it does in my mind.

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Xerkis wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote: a unit w a stat of one wouldnt get any benefit until it was 5 bars (1*1.50) Of course then it would leap to 2 at one bar and never change no matter how more experiance it gets.

... and this is what the combat predictions are showing too.
experiance doesn't matter for infantry -- as far as gaining the initiative.

If thats the case , same for other low starting infantry stats like hard attack values.... Kinda make sence though, Even elite veterens of light infantry shouldnt have better anti tank power that uh, a tank unit:)

Well in my mind 4-5 star units are combat-hardened veterans who are provided access to the latest weapons and all the anti-tank weapons they can carry.
Also their combat experience should be reflected in their ability to better set ambushes and fight in close quarters.

And anyway, if the experience would give flat stat-bonuses, it wouldn't make these units superior to "real" tanks, simply give them a better chance to survive, which would make sense, no?
Obviously their hard-attack would be greater than the early war tanks (PzI, PzII), but they wouldn't compare to a late-war PzIV, Panthers or Tigers.

So the conclusion is exp is useful if unit's initial initiative is high, but useless if initiative is low? I haven't done any tests, but from experience, it seems overstrengthed tanks and aircrafts are pretty powerful.

dumbttt wrote:So the conclusion is exp is useful if unit's initial initiative is high, but useless if initiative is low? I haven't done any tests, but from experience, it seems overstrengthed tanks and aircrafts are pretty powerful.

But many types of terrain modify initiative and cause it to be lowered and capped, so even low initiative units with high experience can take advantage of them. Victory hexes are nearly universally located in such terrain, for example.

And you forget about Mass Attack.

So if you have three units around the defender it increase the initiative for each unit. Now add in the Experience bonus of 1 for the first unit that attacks... if it has higher experience than the defender.

The combination with mass attack helps with an experienced unit, if it is the first to attack.

PC used TWO solutions to one problem that was arguably present in PG: highly experienced units were extremely powerful.
PC's solution number one was to make elite reinforcements extremely expensive, so players would have to pay a real premium to get and then keep their units experienced.
PC's solution number two was to greatly reduce the overall impact of experience, which would also be a somewhat viable solution to the problem at hand (though negatively impacting the 'fun factor' of having a truly powerful force) - except solution number one had already addressed the problem, and now we're paying a real premium to keep an elite unit that actually isn't that elite compared to green units.

To add insult to injury, there's actually technically a solution three to the same problem - the "model line" mechanic. Almost inevitably, the day will arrive when your elite unit is of little value to you, since technological advances outclassed their obsolete equipment.
Unless you're in the right timeframe and using either a PanzerIV or a Fw109, chances are you're going to have to shell out a FORTUNE (full unit price) to get modern equipment for your elite troopers...
_____
rezaf

First off, while I'm sure Panzer General forums had its fair share of vocal opponents to "gaming" aspects of the... game, I maintain that a central aspect of its success was its "rpg" stylings.

In other words, for most people, highly experienced units being highly powerful was not a bug or problem, it was a feature and a solution.

Currently, Panzer Corps caters a bit too much for the "hardcore" war buffs, and not enough to what I believe is the target audience, casual gamers wanting to relive their Panzer General memories.


Getting a fair Initiative boost is okay in itself, but isn't enough to explain and encourage five-star units. Not when 1) unit losses can come from anywhere (this problem is exacerbated by the flaky combat estimator) and 2) replacements are super expensive.

And please don't use Tiger II's as your example. The game doesn't work correctly (as in "like PG") if it doesn't make sense to maintain gold stars on your top panzers, regardless of era.

And before Tiger IIs there simply is no such panzer unit. You might want to be proud of your PzIVG "special elite", but as the game stands today, maintaining more than three gold stars simply is unfeasible. The cost of maintaining Strength 13 is astronomical and for what? That strength will be whittled away even in fairly modest attacks;

Getting "1-7" is not acceptable when you pay such a premium; you need "0-X", and
1) that means you can only ever use your unit in the absolute best circumstances; making the unit next to useless (you simply can't afford to pour that much prestige into a unit and then not use it without maximum support all the time)
2) the combat subsystem is far too unpredictable in PC; meaning that sooner or later you'll get a "4-9" result anyway. Sure, you devastated that enemy unit, but you just lost your entire overstrength!

Especially for the casual / beginner gamers - they're especially hurt by the prestige drain (since a veteran gamer will cope much better under low prestige conditions).

Cheers,

PS. And by casual / beginner I mean playing on General AI at minimum - lower AI settings have reduced AI capacity and nobody wants that.

To reiterate:

I don't want to ruin your game.

While I strongly believe changes need to be made, and to be made to the default game; I have no problem with keeping today's system as an optional variant.

So once this has been patched, simply check that checkmark in options somewhere, and you can keep on truckin' just like today!

(Just repeating this to avoid anyone complaining they like it fine just like it is today, and that they don't want changes made.)

El_Condoro wrote:Part of what I'm getting at is whether the over-strength button is ever worth using.

Well, you can only over-strength a unit that has some experience.
The advantage of a over-strengthed unit is that it can stay in battle conditions after receiving some casualties.
An overstrengthed 12-PzIV can take 5 casualties and still be a somewhat useful 7-PzIV.
A regular strengthed 10-PzIV taking 5 casualties is an iffy 5-strength unit.

So, I am currently playing to keep units at 2 stars. More than that is too costly:

Kerensky wrote:The first two stars are gained at a fairly quick rate. In the past however, Panzer General games were plagued by full cores of 15 strength 5 star units. Our solution was to create a system of diminishing returns on experience.

Your first 100 experience takes 100 experience worth of battles to get.
Your next 100 experience takes 200 experience worth of battles to get.
Your next 100 experience takes 300 experience worth of battles to get.

So 3 stars has actually taken 600 experience to acquire.

Strategic bombers, though, seem easier to keep at higher stars. On my current campaign He-111 are at 13+. Same for artillery.

rezaf wrote:To add insult to injury, there's actually technically a solution three to the same problem - the "model line" mechanic. Almost inevitably, the day will arrive when your elite unit is of little value to you, since technological advances outclassed their obsolete equipment.
Unless you're in the right timeframe and using either a PanzerIV or a Fw109, chances are you're going to have to shell out a FORTUNE (full unit price) to get modern equipment for your elite troopers...

Yes. Thats why am only giving elite re-inforcements to long used families.
viewtopic.php?p=250889#250889

Am playing at the highest difficulty level to try to unlock the extra difficulty levels, will post my impressions about this later on.
Right now, I am just regretting the decision to keep the Me-110. Should have disbanded it in Norway. Its too expensive to keep a plane that is a so-so fighter and a lousy bomber. Guess PzC modeled it well from reality.

To highlight the suggestion I made in another thread:

How about making the combat prediction more accurate the more experienced your unit is, at least as regards taking losses?

That is, we all know the current PC game favors the realistic idea that nothing is ever certain in warfare.

But that runs directly counter to a player's joy of building and maintaining elite units.

So what if five gold stars meant that the losses indicated by the quickie combat indicator were the worst you could ever get. Each less gold star means that the estimate can be one point "off".

This would at least mean you would no longer experience the frustration when the combat indicator says "0-7" and you get a "3-7" win (which would completely erase the overstrength you've so carefully built up for a three gold star unit).

How about making the combat prediction more accurate

Well why stop there when you can simply pick up a game of chess...

Molve wrote:To highlight the suggestion I made in another thread:
How about making the combat prediction more accurate the more experienced your unit is ...?

I like this!

Great conversation. From what I can see, gaining experience and keeping it by buying expensive replacements is worth more when you are playing a campaign. In that case, you will have the unit a long time, hopefully, and be able to overstrengthen it in the later scenarios when that extra firepower is really needed, especially since the scenarios limit the number of units you can have in play. Having three 13 strength tanks is almost like having an extra armor unit in the game. Plus, of course, the units have more punch, which can really come in handy. In single scenarios, I don't worry that much about buying expensive replacements because the game won't last long enough for units to gain very much experience anyway. If a unit is close to a 100 mark or if buying green replacements will knock it below a 100 mark, I'll often buy expensive replacements, but not even always then.