why are half-track upgrades so expensive?

[Razz1]

I don't see the point of having another recon unit. There isn't any benefit.

As for horse, just DL the AT and AA Mod.

[ffl310]

I see your point for recon.
I don't consider the sdkfz 250 relevant, so few being produced in comparison with 251.


Sdkfz 7 would be a good addition for the big guns.

[El_Condoro]

I don't see the point of having another recon unit. There isn't any benefit.

As for horse, just DL the AT and AA Mod.

My point is that the 250 was not used for land transport as much as the 251 and could easily be removed from that class altogether. For recon, I can see it being a cheaper alternative to the 222/231 in early war (given a spotting range of 3, of course) but wouldn't be a major loss IMO if it wasn't added to recons.

As for the AA/AT Mod I just dl-ed it and tried it with existing campaigns - it froze PzC. I assume it is intended for ones created with the mod.

[ffl310]

What about a new hybrid unit ?
Recon Infantry mounted on sdkfz 250.

[impar]

A new Sdkfz 7 HT would go hand-in-hand with the other needed transport type - horse.

Yep. Horses are needed in PzC.

[Some1]

Trucks are 50, halftrack 100, but a slightly better halftrack is 200??? Seems pretty steep.
I can understand paying full price to go from a truck to a halftrack, but why does a slightly better halftrack cost the full 200 as well?

Thanks

Historically, providing transport to the same amount of personnel using 'Sd.Kfz.250/1' did cost about twice as much compared to using 'Sd.Kfz.251/1':

Code: Select all

Sd.Kfz.250/1 (le Schütz Pz Wg), Crew:     6, Cost: 20420 RM (basic vehicle 'Sd.Kfz.250')
Sd.Kfz.251/1 ( m Schütz Pz Wg), Crew: 11-12, Cost: 22560 RM (basic vehicle 'Sd.Kfz.251')

Source: 'Datenblätter für Heeres - Waffen - Fahrzeuge - Gerät' / 'Dokumentation W 127', contains official 1944 Wehrmacht (RfRuK) datasheets

[Some1]

I think the halftracks should be in the same class, so you don't have to pay full price when upgrading.

An upgrade path wouldn't be very logical, as those two SdKfz were different vehicles. But it is also not needed, you have already proposed the solution:

Another thing I'd like to see is credit when disbanding your transport during the Deploy phase. If you disband any other unit, you get the Prestige back: except the transports.

Handling the change from 251 to 250 as disbanding an unit (the SdKfz) and buying a new one would allow for an reasonable upgrade, due to getting back (part of) the prestige of the 251.

Sometimes, I like taking my fallschirmjagers out of their transports on certain scenarios (gebirgsjagers are another one that I sometimes like out of their transports). Both of those units have special properties when not in their transports. Problem is that it can get very expensive when you get no credit for disbanding them and, then, have to buy them back at full price for the next scenario.

Indeed

[Some1]

My point is that the 250 was not used for land transport as much as the 251 and could easily be removed from that class altogether.

I disagree.

First it shall be the players decision to choose the expensive 250 or the cheaper 251, as long as the drawbacks are part of the unit statistics (as it is the case with the high unit cost).
Second both the 250 and 251 were primarily APCs (Armoured personnel carrier/ Schützenpanzerwagen), even if they are sorted in the 'transport' unit class. By removing the 250 the player would be denied the possibility to make a choice, as the Opel truck was just a transport.

For recon, I can see it being a cheaper alternative to the 222/231 in early war (given a spotting range of 3, of course) but wouldn't be a major loss IMO if it wasn't added to recons.

I fail to see the benefit, as the 222 and 231 are already cheap, and there is also the Kavallerie.

[MartyWard]

Can you disband just the transport of a unit?

[Kerensky]

Can you disband just the transport of a unit?

Yes, during an upgrade session (midturn and during deploy phase)
Change your transport to the 'no transport' option.

[Rudankort]

250 is not "slightly" better than 251, the difference between 6 and 8 is huge, and makes this transport quite outstanding. Thus, most tanks have movement of 5 or 6. So, the prices were assigned specifically to make 250 transports rare (unless you have so much money you don't count it anyway). It is something like a "luxury" option, 251 should be good enough in most cases, but you can have more if you are ready to pay for it. I think that this decision is good both from gameplay point of view, and from historical realism point of view (all units having 250 transports is not historically justified).

For this reason there are no plans to reduce the price of 250, or make it in the same series as 251 and so cheaper to upgrade (the latter would have the same net effect as price reduction).

[MartyWard]

Can you disband just the transport of a unit?

Yes, during an upgrade session (midturn and during deploy phase)
Change your transport to the 'no transport' option.

Do you get the prestiege back?

[Some1]

251 for troops and a new class for artillery with sdkfz 7.
The last one could be expensive.

A new Sdkfz 7 HT would go hand-in-hand with the other needed transport type - horse. That would give players towing options of none (not very realistic but possible given the way PzC handles towed AT/AA/ART), horse (cheapest and most numerous as per history), Opel, Sdkfz 7.

I really like the idea of extending the transport unit class by adding prime movers, e.g. the 'Sd.Kfz. 7'. At the moment there is no unit in PC which should be able to tow the middle and heavy artillery. With the SdKfz 250/251 being APCs, they are fine for heavy infantry, but don't make sense for artillery crews. Also the SdKfz could at most only tow light trailers, if at all.

The '21 cm Mrs 18' with its 12t trailer being the heaviest towed unit in the game (besides the '12,8-cm Flak 40' on 26t 'Sd.Anh.220'), at least one prime-mover/artillery-tractor with a towing capacity of 12t or more needs to be in the game. So either a 'Sd.Kfz. 8' or a 'Sd.Kfz. 9':

Code: Select all

Sd.Kfz. 7 ('m Zgkw  8t'), Crew: 3+ 8, Speed: 50km/h => Movement: 6, Cost: 36000 RM ('s.F.H. 18', 's. 10cm K.', '8,8cm Flak')
Sd.Kfz. 8 ('s Zgkw 12t'), Crew: 3+10, Speed: 50km/h => Movement: 6, Cost: 46000 RM ('15cm K 18', '10,5cm Flak', '17 cm K 18', '21 cm Mrs 18')
Sd.Kfz. 9 ('s Zgkw 18t'), Crew: 3+ 4, Speed: 50km/h => Movement: 6, Cost: 60000 RM (18t nominal towing capacity, but somehow able to handle the '12,8 cm Flak 40')

Source: 'Datenblätter für Heeres - Waffen - Fahrzeuge - Gerät' / 'Dokumentation W 127', contains official 1944 Wehrmacht (RfRuK) datasheets

If all of this would be to complicated for PC, add only the 'Sd.Kfz. 8' and assume that the few '12,8 cm Flak 40' would be pulled each by two to three 'Sd.Kfz. 8'

[Tarrak]

All you get by including all this different transports with same stats is create confusion for new players. Either you need to diversify the stats to actually give players some options or it will be quite pointless.

[Kerensky]

All you get by including all this different transports with same stats is create confusion for new players. Either you need to diversify the stats to actually give players some options or it will be quite pointless.

Back when I was a newbie playing Steel Panthers, this was a huge hiccup for me. The abundance of 'similar' transports that were actually critically different in their cargo capacity. Not just how much weight they can tow, but their cargo capacity too. As a new player, it confused the hell out of me.

I'm not sure that level of detail is warranted in a game like Panzer Corps. These sorts of details are really getting into the nitty-gritty. Transports all serve the same purpose, they speed up the transit of any movement from A to B. The only decisions that needs to be made is the cost and effectiveness of the transport in terms of speed and mobility over certain terrain, not mating specific types of ground transports to specific types of units.

[Mercutio]

All you get by including all this different transports with same stats is create confusion for new players. Either you need to diversify the stats to actually give players some options or it will be quite pointless.

Back when I was a newbie playing Steel Panthers, this was a huge hiccup for me. The abundance of 'similar' transports that were actually critically different in their cargo capacity. Not just how much weight they can tow, but their cargo capacity too. As a new player, it confused the hell out of me.

I'm not sure that level of detail is warranted in a game like Panzer Corps. These sorts of details are really getting into the nitty-gritty. Transports all serve the same purpose, they speed up the transit of any movement from A to B. The only decisions that needs to be made is the cost and effectiveness of the transport in terms of speed and mobility over certain terrain, not mating specific types of ground transports to specific types of units.

I have to disagree. SP transport was easy to grasp with a couple of games. The halftrack thing still boggles me. Actually, the whole upgrade path boggles me.

If we are going to bring up upgrading and paths, this is poorly documented, at least to me.

There is no point in buying some types of units because they have a dead end upgrade path. Take tanks for instance. You shouldn't buy too many early as the cost of a PZIII is the same, new or not. However, if you get PZIII, you have to pay full price to get PZIV. Then you get Tigers and Panthers, you have to pay full for upgrade or new again! Talk about confusing. As a newbie, you think it is a no brainer to get the best and latest, to find out you should have saved the prestige to get the better stuff later. Artillery and infantry upgrade nicely. Even some airplane paths. Tanks (especially late) and transports, nope.

I get Panthers and Tigers are entirely different chassis than PZIII or IV. PZ IV is different than III. A newbie has no clue and buys a bunch of PZ IIIs is hosed. Upgrade each time for those tanks, it will cost you upgrading to PZIV later, but you don't know when you start. So then you upgrade the IVs each time and then have to pony up full again for the next level.

To me, this game hinges on what you have around the Stalingrad scenario in game turns. After that, the AI upgrades massively and it is all 2 star. It kind of sucks to play 10+ hours to find out you made the wrong upgrade paths/choices and now you are screwed.

Now, crazy people like me, will start over and even up the difficulty level. Casual users will quit and go back to playing "Angry Birds" or something simple and fun.
Just my take. I am not trying to say the game sucks, I just don't like your arguement.

[Tarrak]

I have to disagree. SP transport was easy to grasp with a couple of games. The halftrack thing still boggles me. Actually, the whole upgrade path boggles me.

Well the same can be said about the PC update paths .. after a few games you grasp it with ease.

If we are going to bring up upgrading and paths, this is poorly documented, at least to me.

Yes they are not documented well but still they are mostly quite logical and i personally grasped the idea very very fast. It really isn't rocket science.

There is no point in buying some types of units because they have a dead end upgrade path. Take tanks for instance. You shouldn't buy too many early as the cost of a PZIII is the same, new or not. However, if you get PZIII, you have to pay full price to get PZIV. Then you get Tigers and Panthers, you have to pay full for upgrade or new again! Talk about confusing. As a newbie, you think it is a no brainer to get the best and latest, to find out you should have saved the prestige to get the better stuff later. Artillery and infantry upgrade nicely. Even some airplane paths. Tanks (especially late) and transports, nope.

I get Panthers and Tigers are entirely different chassis than PZIII or IV. PZ IV is different than III. A newbie has no clue and buys a bunch of PZ IIIs is hosed. Upgrade each time for those tanks, it will cost you upgrading to PZIV later, but you don't know when you start. So then you upgrade the IVs each time and then have to pony up full again for the next level.

To me, this game hinges on what you have around the Stalingrad scenario in game turns. After that, the AI upgrades massively and it is all 2 star. It kind of sucks to play 10+ hours to find out you made the wrong upgrade paths/choices and now you are screwed.

Well as a newbie you should play on some lower difficulty level and then prestige is no problem at all. Someone posted that he had more then 100k prestige spare after reaching the USA. Even on colonel level prestige is usually not a problem at all. You may be not able to afford to upgrade all your core units instantly to the best ones, especially when all the 43 versions of infantry, Tigers , Panthers and FW190 become available in short time span but you do not need any extensive long drawn plans of only buying the units can can be updated most effectively. Field Marshal level may put you here and there at some prestige shortage but we are talking highest difficulty level in the whole game (except the hidden ones). This is meant to pose a challenge to experienced players who knows about the upgrade paths and everything and tbh .. even there you do not need to overly optimize.

I like the additional planing depth the upgrade paths including the dead ends adds. Either i have the option to make myself the early scenarios easier by buying the currently best equipment at the danger of eventually having to wait later to be able to upgrade to end war high end units or i suffer more difficulty early but make myself the end game easier by planing ahead and optimizing my prestige costs in the long term.

Now, crazy people like me, will start over and even up the difficulty level. Casual users will quit and go back to playing "Angry Birds" or something simple and fun.
Just my take. I am not trying to say the game sucks, I just don't like your arguement.

I think you are underestimating the casual players. Only because someone plays casually it does not mean he does not like any challenge.

I think you totally missed the argument Kerensky and me was trying to make. Adding a few more transports with same movement and defense values almost identical but being able to drag different kind of equipments do not add any real depth to the games but add unneeded complexity. You will have to find out what maximal weight which transport can drag, how heavy which equipment is and chose properly ... at the end all guns still end moving at same speed and having same values when in transporters so whats the point?

[ffl310]

Well,
A lot of the fun in that game is to play with a lot of different units. Many of them are redundant but who cares.
So I wouldn't mind seeing a sdkfz 7/8 or 9 added for big guns.
I don't think players would be lost with that kind of stuff.
My 2 cents.

[Fimconte]

Yes, during an upgrade session (midturn and during deploy phase)
Change your transport to the 'no transport' option.

You're not disbanding, you're "downgrading".

I think a system where you could equip units with various support vehicles (and other items) would've been great.
So you could move around your half-tracks or trucks depending on the scenario.

Similar to PG3:SE Hero system.

Do you get the prestiege back?

Nein.

[Some1]

I think you totally missed the argument Kerensky and me was trying to make. Adding a few more transports with same movement and defense values almost identical but being able to drag different kind of equipments do not add any real depth to the games but add unneeded complexity. You will have to find out what maximal weight which transport can drag, how heavy which equipment is and chose properly ... at the end all guns still end moving at same speed and having same values when in transporters so whats the point?

To find out what maximal weight which transport can drag, how heavy which equipment is and choose properly

Yes, the transports are rather similar (besides towing capability, cost and cost/seat). While having a big zoo of similar transports might not be inline with PC design philosophy, it wouldn't be a reason to not add some units to the transport class if done reasonably.

I see three sub-groups in the transport unit class:

• 1. Cheap 'fair weather' rear echelon troop and light equipment transports, e.g. the 'Opel' truck
  2. APCs and front echelon troop transport, e.g. the 'Sd.Kfz. 250' & '251'
  3. Artillery tractors / prime movers for the medium and heavy towed units, e.g. the 'Sd.Kfz. 8'

The towed units should at least get a trait to indicate if they are light enough to be towable by the 'Opel' (and maybe by the 250/251). All other towed units should require a real prime mover.