Comments about new Multiplayer goes here

[Happycat]

Hey Happycat, this was your first MP game right? I've played many games, so I have a significant edge in terms of experience. Don't feel so bad about losing, as long as you had a fun time, like I did.

The river crossings could've helped your forces escape, potentially. If it were near the airfield, for instance. You might've seen that and said, hmm, maybe I should retreat before they get pinned against the river.

As it currently stands, I will in future games try my best to lure units into that area, and crush them against the river. This would be much harder to do with 1 or 2 more crossings available.

It's my first MP game of Panzer Corps, but I have been playing wargames literally for decades, starting with paper maps and cardboard counters in the 70's, SSI games for the PC in the 80's and early 90's, and just about everything since. So experience I've got in abundance. Tactical skill may be what I'm lacking

You had a good plan, and executed it well.

Don't worry, I don't feel badly about losing---I have experience in that field too! And I had lots of fun with our game, and look forward to another any time you want.

[Kerensky]

SAS and ICRS have been updated, if we get a new BETA 1.05 they'll show up there.
Some rivers are gone, some bridges were added, and CORE slots on SAS has been reduced.

I still think The Dneiper is stacked in favor of the Russians though. Anyone have more comment on that?

[fenglicao]

Agree with most of deducter's points.

Unit balance:
The SMG Inf did not seem to serve as a useful unit. It needs 1 or 2 more GD, and/or lowered cost.
The Fw 190a is miles better than Yak-3. Just look at their stats and you know it. FW 190a vs Yak-3 is not 4-5, it is 3.5-5.3, a 51% difference in loss, not 25%. I found it extremely important to read the actual loss odds, not just the mouse-overs, as it is what will dictate the real situation. Just like sometimes you see a mouse-over of 2-1, while it is actually 2.4-0.6, a 4 to 1 loss ratio, not 2 to 1, which will really change your thinking to make that attack or not. In addition, the unit that losses more will have a drastically reduced survivability, where in this game having your unit survive your enemy's turn with a strength of 1 is the happiest thing in the world, that the actual battle out-come between 2 good players is at least 2 to 1 unit loss for the Yak-3 vs Fw190a. Their prices are 583 to 563, 3.7% difference. We know 1 attack or 1 defence is 5% difference. Fw 190a is 1 more attack, 3 more defence, which means 20% better. So the prices should be 583 to 466, or 676 to 563. Even this, it's not enough to make up the 51% actual battle loss difference, let alone the roughly 2 to 1 unit count loss.
I am all for deducter's idea of cheapen the Red air units drastically so they can swarm the sky and win by mass attack. Since there is always a limit of core units, their addvantage in mass attack will be somewhat offset since they can buy less other units.
The Elefant is also miles better than any soviet armor. Elefant vs ISU-122 is 1.5-4.4, almost 1 to 3 battle loss, and even higher unit loss against ISU-122. Their prices are 600 to 533. Elefant is 6 attack better, 1 defence worse, which should translate to 25% price defference. I understand ISU-122 is a 5 speed, and can switch, but it has 1 less ammo, which is critical. The Elefant is extremely survivable as nothing the Soviet has at this stage can cause more than 2 damage.
I understand the Elefant's stats are historically based. But I believe GD should not be a mere representation of front amor thickness, but an overall battle field survivability. In Kursk the earlier version of Elefant suffered heavy losses, when their tracks were blown up by mines, and their infantry cover killed/supressed. Also the ammo should represent the machanical stability, how often they can be used before they need to be serviced/repaired, not the amount of ammo they carry.
So I think the Elefant should have a 4 ammo, slightly less GD, and cost more.

[fenglicao]

Once the units are re-balanced then we'll have to re-balance the scenarios again. Right now it's always better to buy the more expensive units if you can afford it (armor and fighters), since the slightly more expensive ones are always a whole lot better. Those medium priced units pretty much are useless. The cheap ones are still useful as cannon fodders and mass attackers.

Can we addjust the unit prices at least roughly follow the line that 1 attack or 1 defence should spell a 5% difference? It may even need to be compounded instead of added.

I'm very happy to see that the Artillery class is very balanced with the rate of fire and ammount of ammo. To some extent that the expensive ones are not worth it anymore. Often the 122s and 105s are the most efficient ones when you take everything into consideration. A question: why is the German 15cm sFH has a ROF of 8, while every single other unit of similar caliber in the whole game is 9? It cost just as much as all other nations similar ones.

The Infantry class as a whole is also fairly well balanced. Some of the Recon units need to be slightly more expensive. The AAs are useful in scenarios but no one buys them in campaign. Towed AT will also need some help for anyone to buy. Tac Bombers seem mostly OK. Level bombers may also need some help. It's the fighters and AFVs that need some significant adjustments. The good ones should either be less 'good', or more expensive.

The bottom line should be: Every unit that is not obsolete, should have a reason of its existance, that someone will consider buying them at some time.

[fenglicao]

I actually support the existance of all the elite aux units. They are non-replacable and thus become an important part of the game plans. Yes their roles are totally different than the ones in campaign.

[fenglicao]

Dneiper: I don't think it's necessary stacked in favor of the Russians, because of 1 reason: Elefant. Though the Germans will suffer initial set backs but I believe they can eventually push the Russians back across the river. I'm currently playing one against deducter right now and was suprised that he pushed through the rivers so resolutely and efficiently (helped by some of my dumb mistakes). I surrendered one earlier when I got frustrated and started one with him again. 2 other reasons may also help: The Germans can swing their forces from 1 crossing to another quickly while the Russians not so much. Germans enjoy a better prestige per turn, 400 to 300 (something I just found out today, too late for the one that I am playing as the Allies). Most likely it will come down to the last turn's action to see who gets the most crossings, and for that, Germans will play last, which is a huge plus here. But the Russians have better artillery which may allow them to hold whatever they have. Too bad my game with deducter is not half way through yet.

If the Elefant is ever re-adjusted then the Germans diffinitely need a few more units (a couple more artillery?) and/or more prestige.

The one I'm playing as Russians I didn't even try to cross the river as I didn't know the Germans starts with less prestige but gets more per turn. I thought it will just be cautiously grinding out each crossing until the last turn with my better artillery.

If the map is slightly larger then the 2 Russian para may be more useful. Right now it's impossible to do a suprise drop against a good player.

So I think Dneiper as of now is balanced and does have its uniqueness that deserves a thumb up.

[fenglicao]

SAS: All for removing the rivers on the top. But once that is done, I don't think we need to reduce the number of units anymore as a lot units need to go there. Right now un-modified it just needs a couple units to guide the crossings. 1 more crossing in the south will be good, but make it between the current 2 so paras can fly by un-noticed through the south edge. Currently I'm playing a paired one against deducter, whatever he discribed is exactly what we are doing, slugging it out in the middle, with the Germans in favor because of the advantage of Elefant over ISU-122, and the air superiority the Fw 190 commands. The Russians can buy AA behind their line, but then they block retreat and start to cause surrenders.

[Kerensky]

Unit balance isn't likely to change much anymore.

Elephant already got a big price hike. (It used to cost 400ish you know)
And if you're just slugging it out face to face Elephant against ISU-122, you're doing it wrong. The counter to the elephant is infantry (and airpower if u have superiority), even in open terrain. You can get 10 concripts for the price of 1 elephant, they move just about as fast, and there's no way the elephant can handle even 1 conscript in a 1 vs 1 engagement.
Besides, the ISU-122 has the bonus of having an artillery mode.
Opening up SAS map by removing rivers and making more crossing will fix this issue. Elephants and their high price and slow speed should be much more easily out maneuvered.

SMG infantry isn't supposed to be an 'all purpose make all other Soviet infantry obsolete' unit. They serve a very distinct role of being close terrain fighters, but it's unavoidable they are somewhat overshadowed by the new and improved 43 variants of the other infantry. SMG infantry are a 1942 infantry unit after all.
Maybe a price reduction is in order, but that's about it.

I'm not overly convinced the air war is that bad. Seems to be only buying Yak 3's is the problem.
You can get 2 I-16s for the price of 1 Yak 3. So instead of 2 Yak 3, get 1 Yak 3 and two I16s. Use 1 I16 to soak up interceptor fighter, use the remaining I16 and Yak3 to annihilated the frail German Stukas.
After you hit and run the Stuka, retreat any of your surviving aircraft, fix them up, and repeat the process.

This will leave the German player with 2 options: Buy enough fighters they can destroy all your soviet planes in a single turn (at least 6, probably 7 fighters to 100% destroy these 3 soviet units). Or continue to lose Stukas every time the Soviet player does their hit and run.

Or a Soviet player can lull their enemy into a false sense of air superiority, hiding their fighters for many turns, eventually the opponent will get sloppy and stop escorting their bombers and stop concentrating all their fighters, and then that's when the Soviet player returns in force. I've seen this happen many times on Hylan Valley. The player who initially loses air superiority regains it about 10 turns later.

Also, the extreme durability of the IL2 makes it a pretty strong asset, it almost doesn't even require a fighter escort, leaving the Soviet aircraft to go full bore into the Stukas.

As for making more units more useful, this was already done pretty much to the limit. Any further and we're just going to piss off the 'historical accuracy' folks.
Making more units more useful doesn't mean making all purpose 'uber' units (which some people seem to think is the answer, but will only lead us back to the original problem)

[Kerensky]

SAS has coming:

Top Rivers removed entirely.
Bottom Rivers shortened.
Bottomed rivers both gain 1 extra crossing.
Both sides core size reduced by 2.
Pre-placed Soviet Yak9D upgraded to Yak9U.

All of this together should open up the map a lot more and gives more options for maneuvering.

Just be glad we moved equipment availability dates around. Previously in the old equipment file, the Jagdpanther and IS-2 were both available on this map.

[fenglicao]

RTK: Because of the river is so easy to defend, it again become a slug fest in the middle, and this time its all artillery. Whoever gets the upper hand in artillery and the amount of suppression they cause will gradually push forward, and for that matter, not only the Russian have better artillery, but also play first, so they are heavily favored, if the player know what to do.

Right now I'm playing a paired one, and my opponent may be new to this. In both games I lined up artillery in the middle, with 9 as the Germans and 12 as the Russians, and have successfully pushed forward almost to the city edge. But it was a lot easier to be the Russians.

It may require the Germans to play first to have this one balanced, but that will be against the historical backdrop. So add a few German artillery to start with may help.

It's a unique scenario so I think it's good.

[Kerensky]

I guess the SMG infantry could use a slight price reduction.
Basic Guards are better in all stats except SA and CD, and they cost less.
So if basic guards are 128, SMG infantry can be 131 and give them +1 ground defense (up to 6 from 5).

I don't think the elephant should change. Maybe -1 GD or -1 init or -1 ammo, I dunno.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the Soviet fighters got a small (NOT a drastic) price reduction.

I passed this along, we'll see how the rest of the team feels about it.

[fenglicao]

Using conscripts against Elefants do work in other places but not so much this one, because everything is so packed together in the middle, there is just no room. We are talking about a line of Elefants, not one with exposed flanks. You can only attack from the front side and he can always resupply/pull back easily. Not to mention both sides will have enough artillery, infantry to help. He doesn't need to push forward too much, just enough to occupy the fortifications pass the VH airfield. The other VHs will likely be even as of now.

The opened-up north will change things.

I guess using some I16s instead of all Yak-3 is a better idea. But I think it still favors the Germans. If the Germans start with 4 fighters and 2 Stukas (which is something deducter will do, and only more), the Russians will need to have 2 Yak-3s and 6 I-16s to take out the 2 Stukas, while the next turn the Germans will easily take out the 4 cannon fodder I-16s with almost no loss. How do you like that trade? 2 Stukas vs 4 I-16s? We are talking about good players vs good players here, and deducter is damn good, prepared for all the tricks you may pull. He doesn't fall into a false sense so easily.

Right now the only thing works against German fighers is AA, and spend the extra money on gound units.

[Kerensky]

Right now the only thing works against German fighers is AA, and spend the extra money on gound units.

Yup, that's important too. Anyone who goes air heavy runs the risk of the ground war going very badly as they get 'blitzed' before their air superiority can do enough damage.
And then of course, there's weather which can really ruin the day of someone who goes air heavy.

And 4 I16s for 2 Stukas sounds like a good deal to me. Those 109s and 190s strafing units does pitiful damage now, and doesn't even 'chew up' ammo of [1] AA units.
Sure the price war is in favor of the Germans, but the Soviets accomplished their goal of removing Luftwaffe tactical bombers. And all the while, what's happening to any Soviet IL2s? They're merrily bombing away while the I16s soak damage.



Lastly: Are you SUURE The Dneiper is balanced? I really feel like the Germans are getting hammered on that map.
1 more German core slot and 1000 extra prestige to start I feel they need. Or instead of 1k up front, an extra 100 per turn on their injections, which totals 1400 extra prestige over the course of the entire scenario.

[fenglicao]

My Dneiper game against deducter is only half way through and I can't say for sure. I surrendered one as the Axis to him after maybe 4, 5 turns out of frustration and was in a bad situation. By the way that was the only game I feel I actually lost. I played 30-40 MP games before and never lost one, mostly paired ones. But then I never used password and thus mostly played new players. I like easy opponents, I don't know why .

I have restarted that one with him again and hope we can finish it up soon. My gut feeling is I will be able to push him back, and let it all come down to the last turn. Hope he can prove me wrong. The one I'm playing Russians I may not have started the game with the correct strategy.

[fenglicao]

Yes the merrily bombing IL2s do even things out. I am just the guy who don't like net prestige losses. Between good players I feel it eventually all come down to who use their prestiges more efficiently, while neither side make any strategic mistake.

For example, sacrificing a guard 43 to kill 9 strength of a Tiger should be considered a great victory, right? But to me, it can be a loss since it cost me 192 to replace the guard, while less than 160 to replace that Tiger. Of course, both sides lost 1 turn for 1 unit, and possiblly 2 for the Tiger if it needs to pull back to replace, and losing turns for a Tiger is definitely more significant. So it's a trade I'd do, but I still tell myself it's a net prestige loss. So in this game a clean kill is 10 times better than leaving something with 1 strength.

By the way the IL2 is such a good unit that it helped greatly to balance things out.

[deducter]

It's interesting that Kerensky says the counter to Elefants is massed infantry, which is exactly what I'm doing, spamming conscripts to throw at them. The Elefants, though, do surprisingly well against infantry, thanks to their 5 SA. In the meantime, I try to pick apart other units. Historically of course, they were extremely good tank destroyers, but suffered from mechanical problems and hence weren't widely used. They also lacked machine guns, making them very vulnerable to infantry attack. So how is the 5 SA justified, shouldn't it be 2 or 3, like the Marders that lack machine guns? I think that the SA change is what's needed, and there's plenty of historical justification for that.

Keep in mind the air war isn't quite as simple as it seems. Investing at least 900 prestige into I-16s, let's say 3 of them, to shoot down a stuka, is not a winning proposition, a balance of 600 prestige in favor of the Germans. Plus it's 3 core slots used up, that is useless afterwards. As the Germans, I'd be happy to lose a stuka and shoot down 3 fighters every few turns. In practice, without at least some presence in the air, TAC bombers aren't going to be used, and ceding the air entirely can be a recipe for disaster.

The Yak3s are expected to do reasonably well against the FW190s, but in reality they do suffer quite badly. You'll quite possibly get lots more "COMBAT PREDICTIONS ARE USELESS" complaints, and who wants to deal with that? But if the Red Air Force fighters are cheaper, well, that would help. I'm thinking 480-500 prestige for a Yak3 would help quite a bit, with a reduction to the other fighters too. Don't forget the Germans have all those nifty mobile AA guns, and besides on Hylan, when do we ever see them used?

I can't really tell if the Dnieper is really balanced. I'm tempted to say it's fine now, but I don't think the Soviets have as massive of an advantage as Kerensky thinks.

Re Fenglicao: I'm a decent MP player, so you should expect me to put up some serious opposition. I'm not so good tactically in heavy armor vs. heavy armor battles. You should play me in Hylan or TFN, where my strength is more evident. Glad we're having fun though.

[deducter]

Yes the merrily bombing IL2s do even things out. I am just the guy who don't like net prestige losses. Between good players I feel it eventually all come down to who use their prestiges more efficiently, while neither side make any strategic mistake.

This is definitely not true, see Kerensky's game on Hylan Valley where he won despite suffering obscene casualties. Or my game against Neccromancer, where I won 4 VH to 3 VH on TFN despite me killing his army over and over again. Hylan, for instance, gives more prestige to the British exactly because of their unit imbalances.

[deducter]

I guess using some I16s instead of all Yak-3 is a better idea. But I think it still favors the Germans. If the Germans start with 4 fighters and 2 Stukas (which is something deducter will do, and only more), the Russians will need to have 2 Yak-3s and 6 I-16s to take out the 2 Stukas, while the next turn the Germans will easily take out the 4 cannon fodder I-16s with almost no loss. How do you like that trade? 2 Stukas vs 4 I-16s? We are talking about good players vs good players here, and deducter is damn good, prepared for all the tricks you may pull. He doesn't fall into a false sense so easily.

Heh, you haven't seen me play the maps I know, TFN, Hylan, Bocage, and UW. You'll find I have far more tricks on those maps. You may find your strategy of forming a massive blob of artillery/armor to be quite useless against me there.

Since I love maneuver, I often suffer in these heavy metal slugfests, which I admit to not being very good at.

[fenglicao]

well I also prefer maneuver. the maps I played most are the balanced campaign maps, like Greece, Norway, Gustav line, Italy, where most units are pre-bought and I never have a chance to do a blob. I like the allies in Norway and Greece exactly because of their maneuverability.

played a paired TFN against Necromancer once, as Germans I won by kept killing his units until he couldn't throw enough at me any more, as Russians I had a very easy win due to my 6 speed mobility. His superio air force quickly disappeared after I took all 4 airfields. Talking about another strategy to defeat a superior Air Force.

Don't know why now I respect a river crossing too much and usually shy from crossing any, also got this false sense that I can always let enemy come cross and destroy them on this side. Well it doesn't seem to work against deducter. He is smart enough to somehow always maintain retreat route open, and in Dneiper I got too many crossing open for him and is getting worse every turn.

[Kerensky]

The Dnieper:

Reduce Russian starting prestige by 500. 1400 down to 900.
Increased German per turn income by 50. 400 to 450.
Added one German core slot.
Added one pre-placed Nashorn in the Northern area.
Increased starting strength of a few German infantry units.

Hopefully this won't tip the battle too far, but it's clear from my play throughs that Dnieper favors the Russians too heavily.