prestige-39 campaign
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Nah. Thats not the idea.rezaf wrote:Thankfully the game isn't mainly balanced for people who win a DV in Kursk with a unit of Pz1As and 2 SE Wehrmacht '39.
Its to use the best available units, even those that are not in the "good" family tree, and dont use elites.
If changing families when upgrading, disband to get prestige back and then upgrade.
Try it.
I will have to throw my hat in with Rezaf, for what it is worth. Experience should be worth more than just the ability to overstrength. Experience should mean something. It is too common to see a 3-5 star unit taking equal losses against an equivalent enemy unit with zero stars.Losing a highly experienced unit SHOULD be painful - but also not too common, unless you take insane risks. You know that other game Panzer Corps was inspired by? Panzer General? It worked just like that.
I think all of this comes down to better modding support. Rezaf can develop his "Pz General-style experience system" mod.
However, I would be very upset if the base game were changed to incorporate all of his suggestions about improving experience. I would then be forced to play a mod called "PzC-styled experience system."
However, I would be very upset if the base game were changed to incorporate all of his suggestions about improving experience. I would then be forced to play a mod called "PzC-styled experience system."
*sigh*
deducter, what is it you like so much about the XP system as it is now? Do you feel elite reinforcements are an investment worth pursuing? Is it realistic that an unit can go "from zero to hero" in a single mission? And that, for many low-power units, this XP will be almost worthless (except for the overstrength), DESPITE costing a fortune to maintain?
Btw., XP already IS pretty moddable - I'm testing out modded settings with a replay of the '39 DLC. 10/100, like was my first idea, is of course rubbish and much too high.
_____
rezaf
deducter, what is it you like so much about the XP system as it is now? Do you feel elite reinforcements are an investment worth pursuing? Is it realistic that an unit can go "from zero to hero" in a single mission? And that, for many low-power units, this XP will be almost worthless (except for the overstrength), DESPITE costing a fortune to maintain?
Btw., XP already IS pretty moddable - I'm testing out modded settings with a replay of the '39 DLC. 10/100, like was my first idea, is of course rubbish and much too high.
_____
rezaf
I know you can adjust the EXP values easily in a simple file, I think it's gamerules.pzdat or something like that. What I meant with better modding support is that there are issues with v1.04 and custom graphics, I think, and I think the new system for custom campaigns isn't working so well. Basically, the game needs to have a built-in Generic Mod Enabler, which I think also isn't working correctly now. So if rezaf, you wanted to post your suggested experience rules and I were to try it, it would require me to backup and overwrite the original file, which should not be necessary.
I dislike the idea of having these "super-elite" units that can overcome all opposition by itself. That's not interesting gameplay, to have an unstoppable unit. Didn't many people complain about the King Tigers, how they are all but invincible? Similarly, if I understand your proposal correctly, you want experienced units to be very, very powerful.
If units can't be effective when you purchase them, how do you propose to use them? Only for mopping up weakened enemy units? Why wouldn't I then spend my time babysitting my core, so that they are all 4, 5 star monsters after 20 missions, by which point any one of them would be unstoppable, much less the combined force, where the sum is vastly greater than its pieces? That would be like having a full core of king tigers, and I would win battles without thinking, which is boring.
I almost never use elite reinforcements in a mission (sometimes for artillery or planes I might), but I almost always overstrength and elite reinforce during the deployment phase on Manstein difficulty. The overstrength tanks/infantry are more effective than green units, especially with fire support from artillery. They can be the difference between taking a city in 1 turn or 2, and hence the difference between MV and DV. As long as they don't take too much damage, I am also spared spending an extra turn to reinforce. Yes, they will eventually go below 10 strength, but so what, they served their purpose shaving off 2 or 3 turns.
I do agree experience should matter more, but mostly for defense. I wouldn't mind seeing a significant buff to defense stats for experienced units, especially infantry fighting in close terrain (which never gets any defense bonus due to how the system currently work). I wouldn't mind seeing a reduction in the rate of EXP gain (especially for artillery, strategic bombers). But if it ever gets to the point where a 4 star PzIV can outright destroy a JS2 without support, you've gone too far.
I dislike the idea of having these "super-elite" units that can overcome all opposition by itself. That's not interesting gameplay, to have an unstoppable unit. Didn't many people complain about the King Tigers, how they are all but invincible? Similarly, if I understand your proposal correctly, you want experienced units to be very, very powerful.
If units can't be effective when you purchase them, how do you propose to use them? Only for mopping up weakened enemy units? Why wouldn't I then spend my time babysitting my core, so that they are all 4, 5 star monsters after 20 missions, by which point any one of them would be unstoppable, much less the combined force, where the sum is vastly greater than its pieces? That would be like having a full core of king tigers, and I would win battles without thinking, which is boring.
I almost never use elite reinforcements in a mission (sometimes for artillery or planes I might), but I almost always overstrength and elite reinforce during the deployment phase on Manstein difficulty. The overstrength tanks/infantry are more effective than green units, especially with fire support from artillery. They can be the difference between taking a city in 1 turn or 2, and hence the difference between MV and DV. As long as they don't take too much damage, I am also spared spending an extra turn to reinforce. Yes, they will eventually go below 10 strength, but so what, they served their purpose shaving off 2 or 3 turns.
I do agree experience should matter more, but mostly for defense. I wouldn't mind seeing a significant buff to defense stats for experienced units, especially infantry fighting in close terrain (which never gets any defense bonus due to how the system currently work). I wouldn't mind seeing a reduction in the rate of EXP gain (especially for artillery, strategic bombers). But if it ever gets to the point where a 4 star PzIV can outright destroy a JS2 without support, you've gone too far.
I hope you DO realize that you are SLIGHTLY exaggerating my idea/point. 
At the moment, the stock settings are 1/10 for INI/ATT and DEF, and the game picks whichever number is LOWER.
Imagine a Tiger with 2.5 stars experience attacking an enemy infantry unit.
The Tiger has 9 SA. For each full star, he gets 1 OR 10%. In this case, this means 2*0.9 - the half star is ignored.
This leaves us at 1.8. The game then rounds down ALL THE WAY from 1.8 to 1, which means our 2.5 star tiger get's an XP bonus of a whopping SINGLE point. That's pitiful, don't you agree?
The problem with the current system (meaning the way it can be configured) is that configuring it is a little fiddly and it's hard to make a one-fits-it-all solution.
I'm playing around with 1/100, 2/20 and 2/20 for INI, ATT and DEF now. Our Tiger tank from the example above would now get an attack bonus of 3 points, which is at least something. But even at five stars, his bonus would still be only 4 points, which is a little low, imo. So I'm inclined to increase the percentage value even further.
Btw., what doesn't work with the mod manager? I mean, the one from the patch obviously sucks ... err .., I mean, has plenty of room for improvement, but the GME should still work fine I thought?
_____
rezaf
At the moment, the stock settings are 1/10 for INI/ATT and DEF, and the game picks whichever number is LOWER.
Imagine a Tiger with 2.5 stars experience attacking an enemy infantry unit.
The Tiger has 9 SA. For each full star, he gets 1 OR 10%. In this case, this means 2*0.9 - the half star is ignored.
This leaves us at 1.8. The game then rounds down ALL THE WAY from 1.8 to 1, which means our 2.5 star tiger get's an XP bonus of a whopping SINGLE point. That's pitiful, don't you agree?
The problem with the current system (meaning the way it can be configured) is that configuring it is a little fiddly and it's hard to make a one-fits-it-all solution.
I'm playing around with 1/100, 2/20 and 2/20 for INI, ATT and DEF now. Our Tiger tank from the example above would now get an attack bonus of 3 points, which is at least something. But even at five stars, his bonus would still be only 4 points, which is a little low, imo. So I'm inclined to increase the percentage value even further.
Btw., what doesn't work with the mod manager? I mean, the one from the patch obviously sucks ... err .., I mean, has plenty of room for improvement, but the GME should still work fine I thought?
_____
rezaf
Honestly I am not clear on what the issues with modding are, didn't read the posts too carefully, just that there were issues which may require another patch to deal with.
I know how the system currently works, and I agree in some situations, like the example you have of the Tiger vs a soft target, it is weak. Similarly, unless your infantry has 5 experience, it won't get any defense bonus in close terrain when fighting other infantry, which is ridiculous. A veteran unit of 2 or 3 stars should survive much better in close combat than green recruits. I don't think they'd inflict much more damage in that case, because in urban combat an experienced unit would know to take every advantage of terrain and fight more carefully. As the system currently works, infantry generally will get +1 attack at 2 stars, or at least grenadiers and pioneers will, when fighting in close terrain, but no defense bonus. I do not like how this works.
I am all for experimentation with the system. Just know what you want to do. I would not enjoy a game where elite reinforcement was the only viable option. Yes, in a mission, I use green reinforcements almost exclusively, but I almost always get elites during deployment, so there clearly is a circumstance where I use it. Perhaps a happy mean of some sort would be best, where I might want to elite reinforcement more often in battle, but less so on the deployment screen. Well actually, I do tend to feed SE units elite reinforcements even in battle, just for the flavor.
I know how the system currently works, and I agree in some situations, like the example you have of the Tiger vs a soft target, it is weak. Similarly, unless your infantry has 5 experience, it won't get any defense bonus in close terrain when fighting other infantry, which is ridiculous. A veteran unit of 2 or 3 stars should survive much better in close combat than green recruits. I don't think they'd inflict much more damage in that case, because in urban combat an experienced unit would know to take every advantage of terrain and fight more carefully. As the system currently works, infantry generally will get +1 attack at 2 stars, or at least grenadiers and pioneers will, when fighting in close terrain, but no defense bonus. I do not like how this works.
I am all for experimentation with the system. Just know what you want to do. I would not enjoy a game where elite reinforcement was the only viable option. Yes, in a mission, I use green reinforcements almost exclusively, but I almost always get elites during deployment, so there clearly is a circumstance where I use it. Perhaps a happy mean of some sort would be best, where I might want to elite reinforcement more often in battle, but less so on the deployment screen. Well actually, I do tend to feed SE units elite reinforcements even in battle, just for the flavor.
Well, conquering Narvik made my prestige reach 9.979.
3 Pioniere + halftrack
2 SE Gebirgsjager + truck
5 Sturmpanzer
4 Panzer IIIF
2 Bf109
2 Stukas + 1 in reserve
1 Ju88
1 232 recon
Funny, two Stukas started the scenario with 225 experience, even if not elite reinforced.
The Seafire was a tough nut to crack.
3 Pioniere + halftrack
2 SE Gebirgsjager + truck
5 Sturmpanzer
4 Panzer IIIF
2 Bf109
2 Stukas + 1 in reserve
1 Ju88
1 232 recon
Funny, two Stukas started the scenario with 225 experience, even if not elite reinforced.
The Seafire was a tough nut to crack.
I think it's established by now that you're a braggar.impar wrote:Well, conquering Narvik made my prestige reach 9.979.
Seriously, maybe you should consider playing on Rommel difficulty?
About XP, I've played the second mission of the '39 DLC now, and it feels very different. I believe the bonuses need to be higher still, considering how slowly units are gathering experience, but you guys DO have a point that they shouldn't be SO powerful that I need them to progress.
After two complete missions, I think my best units are the artillery pieces, which have about half a star.
Even frontline units are slowly gathering XP, though, which surprised me since I almost never invest in Elite reinforcements in the field now (I made them even more expensive on-mission).
_____
rezaf
There have been a lot of very interesting discussions about the amount of prestige in the DLC campaign during the 39 and 40 DLC beta. Those threads have been moved to the open beta forum, and contain interesting ideas and discussions.
Notably this one :
viewtopic.php?t=28844
Notably this one :
viewtopic.php?t=28844
Heheh, of course you would find that thread. 
The bottom line, not all of our players are elite hardcore gamers like me or amazing prestige saving machines like impar. We have to make sure our wide player base also has a fun and engaging opportunity to explore all of the content as well. That means we have to be liberal with our prestige allotting on the default setting of the game. It also means we encourage our 'elite' players to try their hand at the expanded difficult levels, especially Rommel and Manstein.
Otherwise, we'll just have a situation where our average players are constantly 'staving' for prestige while the elite players are just switching to regular replacement and disbanding/recycling methods to maintain their prestige levels.
The bottom line, not all of our players are elite hardcore gamers like me or amazing prestige saving machines like impar. We have to make sure our wide player base also has a fun and engaging opportunity to explore all of the content as well. That means we have to be liberal with our prestige allotting on the default setting of the game. It also means we encourage our 'elite' players to try their hand at the expanded difficult levels, especially Rommel and Manstein.
Otherwise, we'll just have a situation where our average players are constantly 'staving' for prestige while the elite players are just switching to regular replacement and disbanding/recycling methods to maintain their prestige levels.
I agree.I will have to throw my hat in with Rezaf, for what it is worth. Experience should be worth more than just the ability to overstrength. Experience should mean something. It is too common to see a 3-5 star unit taking equal losses against an equivalent enemy unit with zero stars.
Experience was an all too powerful feature in PG but appears to have been watered down far too heavily in Panzer Corps. To be honest i hardly notice its effect on the field so there seems to be no benefit in paying the high price for it when green replacements will do the same job (and come for free at battles end). There is now little or no reason to upgrade an experienced tank to another version, for full price when you can trade in your old model, recoup its full value and use it too purchase the latest models, which offer a clear advantage on the field (a considerable bargain).
This last feature actually makes it disadvantageous to try to maintain your experienced force when you get clear and noticeable advantages for doing otherwise and needs to be rectified.
Nearly all features favour the player who ignores experience in favour of a green and completely replaceable German force.
Well, it is some wild idea that would require massive work (an expansion perhaps), and maybe outside of the scope of what Panzer Corps is supposed to be, but maybe a solution to make experience more meaningful would be to do something like they did in fantasy general/elven legacy (another "general" remake, so it is not that far fetched :p). Basically, when a unit gain one "level", it had a choice between 3 skills or bonus, depending on the level and the type of unit (for example, a pikeman unit would have the choice between an armor upgrade, a bonus against trampling attack, or a small move increase - not an actual in game example). Maybe an unit that reaches 2 (or 3) stars could gain a choice of an appropriate bonus (for example, an infantry unit could choose either a panzerfaust upgrade, giving a slight bonus to hard attack, improved camouflage giving a small bonus to close defense, or a radio giving a bonus to scounting radius. Then at 4 (or 5) star, could choose another one. And the boosts will be temporarily invalidated if the unit dips below the required experience level due to green reinforcements.
Or those kind of skills could alternatively be bought as straight prestige sink in another design system.
Or those kind of skills could alternatively be bought as straight prestige sink in another design system.
To make PzC working exactly as PG did, you need to configure experience setting as 1/0 which would make the game effectively ignore the second (percentage) part.rezaf wrote: The problem with the current system (meaning the way it can be configured) is that configuring it is a little fiddly and it's hard to make a one-fits-it-all solution.
I'm playing around with 1/100, 2/20 and 2/20 for INI, ATT and DEF now. Our Tiger tank from the example above would now get an attack bonus of 3 points, which is at least something. But even at five stars, his bonus would still be only 4 points, which is a little low, imo. So I'm inclined to increase the percentage value even further.
The only difference in PzC, compared to PG, is that there is a "relative" (percentage-based) part of experience bonus which limits experience bonus in case the base stat was too small. And this rule avoids only disproportional 500% bonuses to low unit stats. This was done to avoid elite units obtaining unusual properties, not intended for their unit class. Two classic examples from PG were 5-star tanks becoming expert close fighters (+5 to close defense was huge) and 5-star fighters becoming excellent bombers. PzC tries to avoid such problems, but within the base unit class experience is still very important, like shown in Kerensky's example with tanks.soldier wrote: I agree.
Experience was an all too powerful feature in PG but appears to have been watered down far too heavily in Panzer Corps. To be honest i hardly notice its effect on the field so there seems to be no benefit in paying the high price for it when green replacements will do the same job (and come for free at battles end).
If you guys suggest to change experience rules, please give specific examples and suggestions, then it will be much easier to discuss this stuff.
But most of the best units are in the best families anyway, so it's not a huge benefit imho.impar wrote: Nah. Thats not the idea.
Its to use the best available units, even those that are not in the "good" family tree, and dont use elites.
If changing families when upgrading, disband to get prestige back and then upgrade.
Try it.
I mean in '39 I think only Pz 38Ts and Ju 88 were the only units that don't upgrade into the best units of their classes.
I guess Sturmpanzer Is could one of these side units, but I find SPArt inferior to towed (4 ammo, reload after every offensive, not my cup of tea).
Although you do want to sell any units that don't suit into your doctrine after Poznan and replace them with your picks.
It would be a waste to upgrade 50exp Wehrmacht Infantry into a Pioneer.
But what is crucial to maintaining a hefty prestige balance is squeezing out every prestige point on any given map.
50 prestige might not seem a lot but multiply it by 10, 20, 50, etc. and it adds up to a huge bankroll.
In the entire '39 Campaign, I think the only maps where I didn't capture all the cities were Piatek (missed 3, the rest I sneaked away from the Poles between the waves) and in Kampinsoka Forest (missed Modlin, Skrzeszew and the two airfields, one on the edge of the map and one behind Modlin).
Also, never ever reinforce on the field if you can manage without it.
Oh and a strength 9 unit at 225 exp only goes down to 208 exp if you use normal reinforcements, meaning you can still overstrength them to 12, but save ~10-30 prestige depending on the unit.
This is the reason why I'd like incremental replenishing of units. You could micro to 9 with elite replacements and then use normal for the 10th.
Probably a bit too much microing for the casual player though.