Slitherine

And that's exactly how difficulty levels would work in an ideal world. The AI would play better the higher you set the difficulty level. It's just that we've all become accustomed to brain dead AI where setting the difficulty level higher only changes the amount of resources the AI throws at you in a brain dead fashion.

Personally I don't think defensive scenarios would be all that difficult even with better AI artillery play but I recognize some people are just really bad at games so, hey, keep the AI really bad on anything lower than Field Marshal.

The DLCs are not that easy to balance. While a better AI would make 1939-1942 much tougher, for 1943 and on it would depend on what a player is fielding. Since the German equipment is better than the Soviets, if the player is fielding all heavy armor/Fw 190, no amount of AI improvement is going to make the game a challenge.

I don't think it would be too hard to implement at all and I also think we should have more options aside from just the standard "fog of war", "weather", and "supply". This would allow us to create our own custom difficulty levels based on what we are comfortable playing against / with.

deducter wrote:The DLCs are not that easy to balance. While a better AI would make 1939-1942 much tougher, for 1943 and on it would depend on what a player is fielding. Since the German equipment is better than the Soviets, if the player is fielding all heavy armor/Fw 190, no amount of AI improvement is going to make the game a challenge.

I think this is a good point also but I also think a lot of people have difficulty with the game just the way it is. I would like to see the ability to reduce the number of turns by some amount. Not just the standard 5 you lose with Guderian. For some scenarios this just makes missions impossible to get a DV in.

brettz123 wrote:
Good points but this could be implemented as part of the harder difficulty levels. So you can satisfy both parties I think.

I think "both parties" is an over-simplification of the player base - but assuming for a second it held true I'm not sure implementing more challenging AI to please one set would be a simple excercise. Most wargame difficulty levels are the result of quantitative adjustments - the AI and/or the player is given more or less of something by simply changing a value(s) or global variable(s). To actually make the AI play smarter would be a qualitative adjustment which would probably involve actual coding changes. Although the individual changes, to produce artillery smart AI for example, might be small, the added complexity of having multiple versions of AI code could quickly become a development headache when future improvements are contemplated. Not to mention the headache of scenario designers having to create (or fix) scenarios around several different AI behaviours.

Again I'm not saying it's not necessarily desirable, I'm just of the opinion that given the limited resources of the developers I would rather see them take their time and make a few well thought out updates to the game than squander their efforts and patience on a multitude of knee-jerk tweaks.

boredatwork wrote:

brettz123 wrote:
Good points but this could be implemented as part of the harder difficulty levels. So you can satisfy both parties I think.

I think "both parties" is an over-simplification of the player base - but assuming for a second it held true I'm not sure implementing more challenging AI to please one set would be a simple excercise. Most wargame difficulty levels are the result of quantitative adjustments - the AI and/or the player is given more or less of something by simply changing a value(s) or global variable(s). To actually make the AI play smarter would be a qualitative adjustment which would probably involve actual coding changes. Although the individual changes, to produce artillery smart AI for example, might be small, the added complexity of having multiple versions of AI code could quickly become a development headache when future improvements are contemplated. Not to mention the headache of scenario designers having to create (or fix) scenarios around several different AI behaviours.

Again I'm not saying it's not necessarily desirable, I'm just of the opinion that given the limited resources of the developers I would rather see them take their time and make a few well thought out updates to the game than squander their efforts and patience on a multitude of knee-jerk tweaks.

No doubt I don't think anyone wants knee jerk reaction changes and that is why we are discussing it. And there certainly are two distince parties (those who want the game more challenging and those who don't). These changes would certainly take coding changes. Is that simple? Relatively depending on the skill / experience of the coder. The smarter artillery AI could be done modularly and wouldn't be a huge coding issue. Scenario design might be more complicated but I don't know much about that but it isn't anything that can't be overcome.

good points boredatwork.

there has to be a middle ground somewhere. the artillery does need some tweaks and then we will here how suppression by the AI is killing my CORE! I'm losing my beloved core units I had since Poland!!! and so on. now the suppression is toooooooooooo good for the AI and on and on it goes. reminds me of the old PG mod days. everyone wanted something changed to the AI and then the pbem people found faults and on it went. I remember making a mod for PG and one tester said and he was right, " hey I want to enjoy PG after a lousy day at work", not "come home to another ball buster" others thought it should be harder and on it went

now I just enjoy the game and very happy someone takes the time to like Alex and others to make the game for me to purchase or get a freebie time consuming creation by other fans of the game.

if one just can't enjoy the game anymore against the AI, there is the option of playing a living breathing human intelligence. then no holds barred doin that stuff and had my ego lowered a tad a few times playing that PG intelligence before. talk about a ball buster

What do you guys think about adding more units to certain maps? Would that help increase difficulty without making things crazy?

Difficulty can already be significantly changed just by modifying the equipment and gamerules file. For instance, increasing the cost of heavy armor and adding a UpgradeExpPenalty would make 1943 scenarios much more challenging. Arguably this is more "realistic" too.

The fact is that T-34s and even KV-85 and JS-1 are no match for experienced German heavy tanks. Sure, you can make the game harder by blocking the path to VH with so many tanks that DV becomes impossible to achieve that way, but that hardly seems interesting.

There are plenty of ways of making the game harder or easier currently. The game is plenty hard if you play in a "historical" manner.

brettz123 wrote: And there certainly are two distince parties (those who want the game more challenging and those who don't).

I want a more challenging game. Player B wants a more challenging game. Doesn't mean we would agree on the means to achieve it. We could have different views on the acceptability of loosing core units. We could have different views regarding historical core vs best units possible. We could have different views on the pace and flow of the game.

What do you guys think about adding more units to certain maps? Would that help increase difficulty without making things crazy?

One of the big reasons why the artillery improvement is desired is because artillery is the only tool that would help the AI overcome choke points. Increasing map sizes relative the number of units and reducing the amount of impassable rivers so that the AI isn't limited to a handfull of predictable approaches would likely make it more competitive regardless of it's artillery savvy.

I don't understand why this discussion is becoming so heated (not that it's necessarily a bad thing) when there are difficulty settings. There are 8 levels of play - surely everyone can be accommodated in there somewhere! No changes to the 5 base levels would be fine if the 3 'advanced' levels had some AI buffs. A tough day at work - play on Colonel (the AI acts as now); a desire to fight a tough AI - play on Guderian (the AI uses artillery well, for example). It's not an all-or-nothing solution being suggested.

Exactly! It should not be controversial at all to improve the AI at the "bonus" difficulty levels. Don't like it? Play on Field Marshal! Everyone is happy.

Whether or not Slitherine wants to spend the time doing this is another issue. It seems like you would want to heavily support your cash cow, though.

El_Condoro wrote:I don't understand why this discussion is becoming so heated (not that it's necessarily a bad thing) when there are difficulty settings. There are 8 levels of play - surely everyone can be accommodated in there somewhere! No changes to the 5 base levels would be fine if the 3 'advanced' levels had some AI buffs. A tough day at work - play on Colonel (the AI acts as now); a desire to fight a tough AI - play on Guderian (the AI uses artillery well, for example). It's not an all-or-nothing solution being suggested.

Why couldn't you just choose to use the 'advanced' AI when you start a campaign, like you choose FOW and Supply.

^Yep, good idea. One more approach to the issue - same point: it's not an all-or-nothing situation.

El_Condoro wrote:I don't understand why this discussion is becoming so heated (not that it's necessarily a bad thing) when there are difficulty settings. There are 8 levels of play - surely everyone can be accommodated in there somewhere! No changes to the 5 base levels would be fine if the 3 'advanced' levels had some AI buffs. A tough day at work - play on Colonel (the AI acts as now); a desire to fight a tough AI - play on Guderian (the AI uses artillery well, for example). It's not an all-or-nothing solution being suggested.

That is what I suggested above and I think it would work well that way you can chose what you want to use and not use.

boredatwork wrote:

brettz123 wrote: And there certainly are two distince parties (those who want the game more challenging and those who don't).

I want a more challenging game. Player B wants a more challenging game. Doesn't mean we would agree on the means to achieve it. We could have different views on the acceptability of loosing core units. We could have different views regarding historical core vs best units possible. We could have different views on the pace and flow of the game.
.

That is why if you read my posts I asked that it be added as an option. I understand not everyone wants the same thing. But if your answer is simply we may have differences of opinion nothing will get done.

MartyWard wrote:Why couldn't you just choose to use the 'advanced' AI when you start a campaign, like you choose FOW and Supply.

Because there's always some players who want to play at higher difficult settings, even when they aren't able to. And usually they end up blaming the game.
I wonder if all of you, who are habitual and distinguish residents in this forum, ever think that most of the players of this game never entered in the forum and express their opinion.
I appreciate all the enthusiasm you have, just like myself, towards PzC. But sometimes I try to put myself on the developers and producers head. I think, like with any other decent developer, they produced the game for a vast audience and not only to be enjoyed by the hardcore audience. And this is the nature of the business, either you or I like it or not.

Taking this into account, I would like however, also to see a smarter AI, even at Colonel level, which is the level that I play. Personally I find more fun to play against a smart AI ,even running the risk of loosing. But that's with me and I'm sure with most of you gentleman.
Rudankort already assumed that he would like to tweak the AI. How far it will be tweaked, I don't know, but it's just a question of time.
But please continue, to discuss it.

El_Condoro wrote:There are 8 levels of play

Don't forget the Ultimate level.

AgentTBC wrote:Exactly! It should not be controversial at all to improve the AI at the "bonus" difficulty levels. Don't like it? Play on Field Marshal! Everyone is happy.

There are 8 levels of play - surely everyone can be accommodated in there somewhere! No changes to the 5 base levels would be fine if the 3 'advanced' levels had some AI buffs.

It's not an all-or-nothing solution being suggested.

Except you miss the point, you are suggesting an all or nothing solution - Either you want an easy game OR you want a more challenging game COUPLED with the AI being more effective at artillery.

I want a more challenging game AND I think artillery is overpowered. Making the AI better at using overpowered artillery is IMO unlikely to improve my enjoyment of the game while at the same time complicating scenario design and balance - You're going to have a single scenario that can provide a challenge to the average player with retarded AI artillery while simultaneously making it a challenge to an advanced player with "smart" AI artillery routines?

That doesn't make sense to me. IMO the better solution would be FIRST make artillery less overpowered and THEN make the AI better at using it for **all difficulty levels** so scenario balance is back to purely quantative variables rather than qualitatives ones.

boredatwork wrote:
Except you miss the point, you are suggesting an all or nothing solution - Either you want an easy game OR you want a more challenging game COUPLED with the AI being more effective at artillery.

I want a more challenging game AND I think artillery is overpowered. Making the AI better at using overpowered artillery is IMO unlikely to improve my enjoyment of the game while at the same time complicating scenario design and balance - You're going to have a single scenario that can provide a challenge to the average player with retarded AI artillery while simultaneously making it a challenge to an advanced player with "smart" AI artillery routines?

That doesn't make sense to me. IMO the better solution would be FIRST make artillery less overpowered and THEN make the AI better at using it for **all difficulty levels** so scenario balance is back to purely quantative variables rather than qualitatives ones.

Just fyi you can make artillery less overpowered with a bit of modding. I've tested this for some GC43 and even if you lower ROF by 2 for all artillery, it's a pretty noticeable nerf.

deducter wrote:Just fyi you can make artillery less overpowered with a bit of modding. I've tested this for some GC43 and even if you lower ROF by 2 for all artillery, it's a pretty noticeable nerf.

ty.

I've been following your mod threads with interest as I tend to play with a closer to historical core. I will at some point likely give your rebalancing mod a go. Though I haven't done much with PzC, my main issue with mod solutions is, often they tend to be 2 wrongs attempting to make a right - that is deliberately fudging values to attempt to compensate for flaws in the underlying mechanics. The perfectionist in me would preffer the underlying mechanics were made more perfect to eliminate the need for mods other than those which add content.