You had 10 fighters @Stalingrad or you deployed 10 fighters?
If the latter, then
Without Strat & only 1 Tac?
What core do you deploy in the DLCs?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Had and deployed 10 fighters. I will have to check the DLC but I know at the end of the 1940 DLC I had:Locarnus wrote:@brettz123:
You had 10 fighters @Stalingrad or you deployed 10 fighters?
If the latter, then![]()
Without Strat & only 1 Tac?
What core do you deploy in the DLCs?
What is Mannestein level and how do you unlock it? I have only ever seen the levels running up to Field Marshall.deducter wrote:I'm a bit tired of people complaining the game is too easy when they don't play on one of the bonus difficulties, Manstein in particular. Try playing on beat Manstein without saving/reloading.
On a scale of 1-10 (10 is most difficult), then colonel is like a 3, FM is like a 5, and Manstein would be the 10.
The problem seems to be that the base game can't be made harder without alienating a lot of people. I have long been an advocate of making the scenarios harder without resorting to +5 strength to all enemy units, but until the AI can play like a human, this is probably the only solution.
It is not possible to mod difficulty levels, because we wanted to have them "standard". I. e. when somebody says he is playing on level X, there should be no confusion what kind of difficulty he is talking about.Uhu wrote:Is it possible to edit the difficulty levels, or they are hardcoded?
Rudankort wrote:It is not possible to mod difficulty levels, because we wanted to have them "standard". I. e. when somebody says he is playing on level X, there should be no confusion what kind of difficulty he is talking about.Uhu wrote:Is it possible to edit the difficulty levels, or they are hardcoded?
However, we do plan to allow custom difficulty levels in one of the future updates.
Yup, and this was done very intentionally based directly on player feedback and comments.kjeld111 wrote:However, I think what can be perceived as easier is that the MV/DV conditions are less stringent, especially because they are not linked to a very restrictive turn timer like in the base campaign (with some notable and deliberate exception like Vyazma, aka Moscow 41 v2.0 :p ). Personally, I prefer it that way.

I think the DLC are easier. The AI isn't much of a challenge, so the main campaign has time as your biggest enemy. Thats why everybody hates bad weather and snow - it makes getting a DV very difficult. You have to rush and place your units in risky positions to get a DV and for me many scenarios ended on the last possible turn (even Vanilla Poland).kjeld111 wrote:In my opinion, the 39-41 DLC are not easier than the corresponding base campaign scenarios (we haven't seen how the late war DLCs compare with the harder late war campaign) - I'd say quite the contrary actually (see Piatek or Spoils of War vs Vanilla Poland ...). I'd say that you face actually harder battles.
However, I think what can be perceived as easier is that the MV/DV conditions are less stringent, especially because they are not linked to a very restrictive turn timer like in the base campaign (with some notable and deliberate exception like Vyazma, aka Moscow 41 v2.0 :p ). Personally, I prefer it that way.
Well remember, the last thing we wanted to do was create another Bagration/Balaton situation. There were some pretty epic forum threads about that scenario combo and the brick wall they created. I think having easier DLC campaigns is a compliment actually. I want people to play and enjoy the content, I don't want people to play half a DLC and give up in utter frustration. Even so, I'm certain that the DLC campaigns are not THAT easy. I suspect that people are finding them easier because they have experience playing the stock campaign, and they are familiar with the mechanics of the game.Aloo wrote:I think the DLC are easier. The AI isn't much of a challenge, so the main campaign has time as your biggest enemy. Thats why everybody hates bad weather and snow - it makes getting a DV very difficult. You have to rush and place your units in risky positions to get a DV and for me many scenarios ended on the last possible turn (even Vanilla Poland).
In the DLC the missions are more interesting, the AI gets reinforcements and in some missions has waves of units, but not having a strict time limit lets you play out the missions much more carefully and avoid many losses.
PS I really like the DLC and prefer the approach to victories that they introduce vs the race against the clock in the base campaign, but up till now (just finished the firs scenario in 41) think they are easier than the core campaign.
Aloo wrote:I think the DLC are easier. The AI isn't much of a challenge, so the main campaign has time as your biggest enemy. Thats why everybody hates bad weather and snow - it makes getting a DV very difficult. You have to rush and place your units in risky positions to get a DV and for me many scenarios ended on the last possible turn (even Vanilla Poland).kjeld111 wrote:In my opinion, the 39-41 DLC are not easier than the corresponding base campaign scenarios (we haven't seen how the late war DLCs compare with the harder late war campaign) - I'd say quite the contrary actually (see Piatek or Spoils of War vs Vanilla Poland ...). I'd say that you face actually harder battles.
However, I think what can be perceived as easier is that the MV/DV conditions are less stringent, especially because they are not linked to a very restrictive turn timer like in the base campaign (with some notable and deliberate exception like Vyazma, aka Moscow 41 v2.0 :p ). Personally, I prefer it that way.
In the DLC the missions are more interesting, the AI gets reinforcements and in some missions has waves of units, but not having a strict time limit lets you play out the missions much more carefully and avoid many losses.
PS I really like the DLC and prefer the approach to victories that they introduce vs the race against the clock in the base campaign, but up till now (just finished the firs scenario in 41) think they are easier than the core campaign.

Uhu, you might want to check out in the Scenario Design section a proposal I have for making Rommel difficulty harder. In addition to prestige change, I modified the combat value for various units too and some game rules.I will try to continue the DLC'41 with settings of 20% prestige (Rommel mode is 50%) and reduced xp growing. I think, this will help.

Funny that you mention those scenarios because they were my favorite one (with Stalingrad) in the Maingame.Kerensky wrote: Well remember, the last thing we wanted to do was create another Bagration/Balaton situation. There were some pretty epic forum threads about that scenario combo and the brick wall they created.
Rudankort wrote:Another quick solution is to open DLC's campaign.pzdat file in Notepad and divide all prestige numbers you see there by 2. It is very easy to do, but if anything is not clear to you, feel free to ask. Don't forget to backup the file before changing it.
Then, if you play on Rommel, the cumulative effect of this change will be that you will get 25% of normal prestige amount, except for capturing the cities - exactly what you want.
I did not know DMP team added one more difficulty level. Interesting. What does it look like? Let me guess: 50% prestige and experience, +5 enemy strength and -5 turns?