Slitherine

Then the game is completed without cheating.
For some reason i like this game pre-1943. Beyond it doesnt seem very balanced. It all becomes about heavy tanks.
And as soon as King tigers, pershings and stalins enter the battlefield i lose interest.

TigerIII wrote:For some reason i like this game pre-1943.

That is the best gameplay period. Later war has too powerful tanks and fighters.

impar wrote:

TigerIII wrote:For some reason i like this game pre-1943.

That is the best gameplay period. Later war has too powerful tanks and fighters.

Ya i agree.
I think the heavy tanks is to common later in the game. Perhaps they should cost so much that you wouldnt be able to afford them, except for maybe one or 2.
Or perhaps a heavy tank should cost more core slots than for example a medium tank or light
Say a King Tiger cost the same as 3 or 4 PzIV.

I dont know, i just dont enjoy the game when ground combat is all about King Tigers, wurfrahmen and pioneers. and ya, every Pz div i have with a hero who has +1 movement i upgrade to king tigers.
And in the skies its even worse. My 5 fighters(Me262), all of them 2 and 3 stars had no problem with USAAF. It was harder to defeat the VVS during Barbarossa, than the USAAF during my invasion of mainland USA.
A strenght 13 Me262 can shoot down a strenght 10 Mustang, Lightning or Thunderbolt in one turn. 2 at most.

Its the insta-kill that is boring.

If the player insta-kills the AI, there is no sense of accomplishement.
If the AI insta-kills the player, there is a sense of frustration.

The problem is increased by the late war overstrengthed units the player has.
Apart from making those uber-units rarer by increasing cost dont see what can be done.

I am not a fan of increasing prestige costs, on rommel difficulty it is low enough anyway. One has to have in mind, that players are saving prestige for many scenarios to be able to afford masses of these units, later. Just increasing prestige must makes the game more frustrating to gather this prestige (not to mention the unrealistic high reenforcement costs then). Prestige restrictions need to be sharp, but not to sharp, because the game might get frustrating then (in my eyes).

I clearly support the restriction by core size slots. e.g. normal Inf takes one slot, a king tiger 3-4, a pz iv end war period maybe 1-2 (here one could fix that at issue as well, if they take very little core slots). In that way not prohibitting masses of high end units (you can still hae 5 king tiger, but then probybly not much else), but offering sensible alternatives as well. Maybe I take the 4 pz IV, they just offer more flexibility.

Best regards

Ranta

Ranta wrote:I am not a fan of increasing prestige costs, on rommel difficulty it is low enough anyway.

Playing that difficulty level now, the start was harder but prestige is still plenty.
In Sealion 40, have 5 Gebirgsjager with half-tracks, 5 PzIVD, 2 recons, 5 15cm artillery with half-tracks, 5 fighters, 2 Stukas and 3 He111. And still have 775 prestige to spend.

What I am finding out is how meaningless experience is in PzC, which coupled with the way incremental upgrades works, makes more sense to just use regular reinforcements and disband units that arent cheaply upgraded to better units and get that better unit (just disband PzIVs to get Tigers\Panthers or Me109 for Fw190\jets).

Experience should matter more.

Back in panzer general days i made all kinds og rules to restrict the use of super equipment. For example i was only allowed to have one of each unit. 1 king tiger, 1 tiger and so on. And i could only upgrade 1 of each class per scenario. 3 normal infantry per special infantry, 1 AT gun per self propeled AT and so on. It was actually interesting.
Maybe ill try the same in PC.

The problem is increased by the late war overstrengthed units the player has.
Apart from making those uber-units rarer by increasing cost dont see what can be done.

But isn't that by campaign design? If you have been crushing all of the scenarios with decisive victories (winning the war and thereby capturing all of the resources of Europe) wouldn't you have all of the killer weapons and massive forces?

I'm sure that I'm not the only one in the old Panzer General days who purposely lost some of the scenarios to see what the allies would throw at you if you weren't conquering all of the scenarios.

Has anyone got a decisive in Moscow'41?

TigerIII wrote:Has anyone got a decisive in Moscow'41?

I have never, not on Manstein.

ofc, but with masses of reloadings, though on rommel, not on manstein

Kerensky wrote:

TigerIII wrote:Has anyone got a decisive in Moscow'41?

I have never, not on Manstein.

I cant do it on field marshall either.

I've gotten a moscow 41 decisive on FM, but I had extraordinary good luck, only 1 turn of muddy terrain, the rest clear. When I played through on Rommel I got like 8 turns of muddy terrain, so yeah, not even close.

Personally I think Rommel is the easiest of the bonus difficulties. To bring it up to par with the others, I'd probably reduce prestige by 75%.

Manstein functions almost like the other two combined, since I tend to lose units on that and have to buy replacements, and because units have more strength it takes longer to actually get objectives.

As for later war, e.g. Bagration, I beat it on Rommel with two King Tigers, one SS Tiger, and an assortment of various other units. This was back before all those JS2s got converted to T34s. It's often more about the use of units as opposed to the raw power.

macattack wrote:But isn't that by campaign design?

There is just too big of a gap between mid war tanks and fighters to late war.
Glad the GCs start in 39-40.