Infantry close defence

[Kerensky]

a. nerf the close defense of the Pioniere.
b. significantly increase the attack values of the grenadiers. Perhaps give both them and wehr inf a CD of 1.

I must object to any nerf to pioniere close defense. It's an important counter balance component to keeping cheap infantry swarms at bay. Your bridge engineer/conscript swarm tactics need a proper response, and that whopping 8 CD is the perfect answer to their cheese. Both in campaign and in multiplayer.

[Horseman]

a. nerf the close defense of the Pioniere.
b. significantly increase the attack values of the grenadiers. Perhaps give both them and wehr inf a CD of 1.

I must object to any nerf to pioniere close defense. It's an important counter balance component to keeping cheap infantry swarms at bay. Your bridge engineer/conscript swarm tactics need a proper response, and that whopping 8 CD is the perfect answer to their cheese. Both in campaign and in multiplayer.

I guess my main issue is that as it stands during the campaign if you want to be optimal you only really have 1 choice for infantry and it's not even the one that would have been most numerous. The Pioneers weakness of lower ground defence isn't enough - most infantry gets pretty well slaughtered in the open by time you're facing Russian armour!

Surely the better counter to hoards of cheap infantry is to face them in the open with tanks (and slot wise something like the Panzer 2, 3 or earlier 4s are cheaper than Pioneers)

[adiekmann]

a. nerf the close defense of the Pioniere.
b. significantly increase the attack values of the grenadiers. Perhaps give both them and wehr inf a CD of 1.

I must object to any nerf to pioniere close defense. It's an important counter balance component to keeping cheap infantry swarms at bay. Your bridge engineer/conscript swarm tactics need a proper response, and that whopping 8 CD is the perfect answer to their cheese. Both in campaign and in multiplayer.

That comment was made without much consideration. I just see a unnatural difference in power/effectiveness balance between pioniere and the other two primary infantry, namely the Grenadiers. The the difference between grenadiers and wehr infanterie is insignificant too. Those should be address in some way, but I'm just not sure what the right solution is.

[adiekmann]

a. nerf the close defense of the Pioniere.
b. significantly increase the attack values of the grenadiers. Perhaps give both them and wehr inf a CD of 1.

I must object to any nerf to pioniere close defense. It's an important counter balance component to keeping cheap infantry swarms at bay. Your bridge engineer/conscript swarm tactics need a proper response, and that whopping 8 CD is the perfect answer to their cheese. Both in campaign and in multiplayer.

I guess my main issue is that as it stands during the campaign if you want to be optimal you only really have 1 choice for infantry and it's not even the one that would have been most numerous. The Pioneers weakness of lower ground defence isn't enough - most infantry gets pretty well slaughtered in the open by time you're facing Russian armour!

Surely the better counter to hoards of cheap infantry is to face them in the open with tanks (and slot wise something like the Panzer 2, 3 or earlier 4s are cheaper than Pioneers)

Horseman, I think you and I identify the core problem the same. How to fix it though since the play dynamics are a bit different with regard to accuracy and initiative when compared to PC1 and its ancestors.

[Horseman]

I must object to any nerf to pioniere close defense. It's an important counter balance component to keeping cheap infantry swarms at bay. Your bridge engineer/conscript swarm tactics need a proper response, and that whopping 8 CD is the perfect answer to their cheese. Both in campaign and in multiplayer.

I guess my main issue is that as it stands during the campaign if you want to be optimal you only really have 1 choice for infantry and it's not even the one that would have been most numerous. The Pioneers weakness of lower ground defence isn't enough - most infantry gets pretty well slaughtered in the open by time you're facing Russian armour!

Surely the better counter to hoards of cheap infantry is to face them in the open with tanks (and slot wise something like the Panzer 2, 3 or earlier 4s are cheaper than Pioneers)

Horseman, I think you and I identify the core problem the same. How to fix it though since the play dynamics are a bit different with regard to accuracy and initiative when compared to PC1 and its ancestors.

There's a reason I'm not a game developer.....I can see the issue but no clue how to fix it that's why we have the likes of Kerenskey and Rudankort (and I may have spelled both those names wrong!)

In good old PG (the original) you only really needed to ever use Pioneers (actually bridging pioneers cause they had the exact same stats but also built bridges!)

HI had the same stats as pioneers (possibly lower HA, it's been a while) but didn't ignore rugged defence like pioneers.

Standard infantry had worse stats all round but moved faster so could actually be useful.

In PC1 every infantry unit had a purpose.
Wehr - faster
Grenadiers - stronger
Pioneers - not as strong as Grenadiers as such but ignored entrenchment. Your assault troops
Gebirgsjager - nippy around hills and mountains
Para's (yeah not gonna try spell that!) - jumped from planes and actually good iniative too so pretty darn decent in an inf fight!
Bridge engineers- got you over rivers!

In PC2 there's just not a need to diversify.
Yeah in Norway (and I'd assume other hilly scenarios) Gebirgsjager had a use. Para's might have a use here and there but unless used in a larger force than you can probably muster won't be massive use (landing 1 or 2 won't be enough if unsupported and actually meet resistence) Bridge engineers are niche, when you need them nothing else will do and any other time (other than cheap garrison) you'd wish for practically anything else.

The Wehr and Grenadiers just aren't up to the task. 1 pioneer can with minimal artillery support take a city with enough strength left to carry on to the next.

One Wehr AND one Grenadier can not take one city with the same artillery support without taking enough damage that at least one if not both units need repair.

The gulf needs to be shorter between these units.

[nexusno2000]

Mountain: Norway and Caucasus.
Wehr: Without trucks is a nice bullet sponge that can repair cheaply.
Heavy: With half tracks they kill other inf pretty well, but no, pretty useless.
Para: Unlimited range planes. Best as aux units. Niche uses.
Eng: Fantastic CD. With half tracks SA also decent. Good traits.

So pretty much eng only, maybe standard inf to fill out ranks.

[ErissN6]

Mountain infantry entranched in hills is a standing ice-breaker against a mass attack, it was very usefull having even only one in defense of Gazala(?).

[nexusno2000]

Mountain infantry entranched in hills is a standing ice-breaker against a mass attack, it was very usefull having even only one in defense of Gazala(?).

Crusader you probably mean.

[shawkhan2]

Pioniere Engineers need to be much rarer. Either limit them to two or raise their core slots cost.
Grenadiers should actually be the heavy hitters of the infantry. They are the ones with lots of mortars and MGs. Their close defense right now is ridiculous. Raise it.

[Snake97644]

I strongly feel one of the greatest imbalances in PC2 is the infantry. I feel the strengths and weakness of the three main types of Inf was far better represented in PC1.

First of all, the name "grenadier" in WW2 was just a name - all inf was renamed Grenadiers from 42/43 onward. If they had transport, then Panzergrenadiers.

Every division only had a battalion of engineers. They were specialists.

What they really represent in this game are heavy assault troops, actually what should be the game's grenadiers minus the ignore entrenchment, who did the bulk of urban fighting. Pioniere were for fortifications and the like, such as sappers in the Battle of Sevastopol. Why would any regular infanterie be weaker in defense than Pioniere? In reality, this doesn't make sense. In attack, perhaps, but the numbers are all wrong. Recon may have been broken in PC1 and is now fixed, but now the infanterie class group is.

The heavy infantry, or grenadiers, in PC2 are the heart of the problem. In PC1 they had stronger attack and increased initiative in exchange for lower movement and reduced ammo. They were superior to pioniere in all ways except the lack of ignoring entrenchment and the bonus against fortifications. Again, because pioniere were specialists, not regiment sized units. This is wholly misrepresented in PC2 which is making other infantrie falsely weaker. The only difference between wehr and grenadiers right now is +1 initiative (which isn't as big of a deal as it was in PC1)...and not much else other than negatives like 2 movement.

So far, I see the problem 2-fold: underpowering grenadiers, and the shift in game dynamics reducing the importance of initiative (compared to PC1 and its ancestors) in favor of the "accuracy" model of how combat works. Pioniere should not be so dominant in close combat, at least not in overall defense. I know the Pioniere have lower regular ground defense, but the way the game plays this is not enough of a difference maker since most of all infanterie's value is in close combat tiles. This is such an artificial dynamic that makes little sense to me.

Okay, enough. I could go on, but I hate reading walls of text too. I don't necessarily have the answers, but thought I'd put problems as I experience it out there.

I think this is an area were PC2 could take a page form OBB in how infantry are handled. In OOB engineers are treated as such, having the ability to build bridges, demo bridges, lay mines, etc. In the attack they function like engineers did in reality, providing support to regular infantry units. PC2, and in fact going back to the PG series as well, turns engineer units into some sort of shock troops, which historical they are not. I think horseman and adiekmann are correct in asserting that other infantry units need to be reworked to have them become the core of armies in PC2. Ideally Pioniere units would really be most effective against hardened positions. After all historically an infantry regiment would be sent in to capture a city, engineers would only have been used in a supporting role, not as the primary assault force.

[gunnergoz]

I strongly feel one of the greatest imbalances in PC2 is the infantry. I feel the strengths and weakness of the three main types of Inf was far better represented in PC1.

First of all, the name "grenadier" in WW2 was just a name - all inf was renamed Grenadiers from 42/43 onward. If they had transport, then Panzergrenadiers.

Every division only had a battalion of engineers. They were specialists.

What they really represent in this game are heavy assault troops, actually what should be the game's grenadiers minus the ignore entrenchment, who did the bulk of urban fighting. Pioniere were for fortifications and the like, such as sappers in the Battle of Sevastopol. Why would any regular infanterie be weaker in defense than Pioniere? In reality, this doesn't make sense. In attack, perhaps, but the numbers are all wrong. Recon may have been broken in PC1 and is now fixed, but now the infanterie class group is.

The heavy infantry, or grenadiers, in PC2 are the heart of the problem. In PC1 they had stronger attack and increased initiative in exchange for lower movement and reduced ammo. They were superior to pioniere in all ways except the lack of ignoring entrenchment and the bonus against fortifications. Again, because pioniere were specialists, not regiment sized units. This is wholly misrepresented in PC2 which is making other infantrie falsely weaker. The only difference between wehr and grenadiers right now is +1 initiative (which isn't as big of a deal as it was in PC1)...and not much else other than negatives like 2 movement.

So far, I see the problem 2-fold: underpowering grenadiers, and the shift in game dynamics reducing the importance of initiative (compared to PC1 and its ancestors) in favor of the "accuracy" model of how combat works. Pioniere should not be so dominant in close combat, at least not in overall defense. I know the Pioniere have lower regular ground defense, but the way the game plays this is not enough of a difference maker since most of all infanterie's value is in close combat tiles. This is such an artificial dynamic that makes little sense to me.

Okay, enough. I could go on, but I hate reading walls of text too. I don't necessarily have the answers, but thought I'd put problems as I experience it out there.

I think this is an area were PC2 could take a page form OBB in how infantry are handled. In OOB engineers are treated as such, having the ability to build bridges, demo bridges, lay mines, etc. In the attack they function like engineers did in reality, providing support to regular infantry units. PC2, and in fact going back to the PG series as well, turns engineer units into some sort of shock troops, which historical they are not. I think horseman and adiekmann are correct in asserting that other infantry units need to be reworked to have them become the core of armies in PC2. Ideally Pioniere units would really be most effective against hardened positions. After all historically an infantry regiment would be sent in to capture a city, engineers would only have been used in a supporting role, not as the primary assault force.

Infantry today are often trained & termed "assault sappers" when their specialty is urban combat. They know how to assault or defend urban complexes and have at their disposal an array of explosives & special tools to breach walls, destroy bunkers or create effective defenses, typically of a hasty nature. They are not combat engineers, who can construct elaborate defensive works given enough time and materials, though some of the training is similar. In WW2 there were similar troops but nearly always regular infantry that was trained & equipped for urban combat. Historically we saw such troops doing their work in places like Monte Cassino (German paratroops) or Stalingrad (Soviet assault/submachinegun teams.) PC2 simplifies this with its "pioneer" troops which are a mismosh of both sappers and engineers. For a game I suppose it is a permissible kind of solution but I think better ones can be devised and implemented if the developers do a bit more homework and also pay attention to the player base.

[econ21]

Historically we saw such troops doing their work in places like Monte Cassino (German paratroops) or Stalingrad (Soviet assault/submachinegun teams.)

The original Panzer corps represented this: paras were great at fighting infantry due to high initiative and Soviet SMG teams were a nightmare to handle in the GC Stalingrad campaigns.

PC2 simplifies this with its "pioneer" troops which are a mismosh of both sappers and engineers.

I don't think Pc2 engineers are a necessarily a mismash - I think they portray quite well the German pioniere battalions that were attached to each Panzer Division, who were essentially assault troops:

https://www.amazon.com/German-Pionier-1 ... 1846035783

PC2, and in fact going back to the PG series as well, turns engineer units into some sort of shock troops, which historical they are not.

I disagree - I think WW2 pionieres in the German panzer divisions were in part an extension or evolution of the shock trooper concept from ww1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper

These in turn were originally experimental pioniere units.

The most notable example of pionieres acting as assault troops was at Stalingrad, where 8 Pioniere battalions were the spearhead of the initial German offensive:

https://www.stalingrad.net/german-hq/op ... bertus.htm

In that instance, they did not support the regulars - they were the core assault force.

So I don't have a problem with having engineers as elite combat infantry, at least for the Germans. Flamethrowers, demo charges, smoke etc. justify the "negate entrenchment" mechanics. It's just I don't like having engineer-only infantry armies being the optimal choice. I'd nerf the CD and raise the core slot. With the engineer support function in PC2, it won't take much to make it more efficient to have a mixed composition (e.g. where it is a choice between 1 engineer plus two regulars or 2 engineers).

[nexusno2000]

Not only this at Stalingrad. Germans used 'storm trooper' tactics when dealing with strong points, derived from ww1. Demo charges and flamethrowers and more. They did good work supported by early stugs from day 1 of Barbarossa.

[gunnergoz]

I still think there needs to be differentiation in the game between regular engineers and specialist urban/fortification assault troops. The present description as "pioneers" may work for Germans at the period the game covers, but won't work for many other armies who operate and are structured differently by doctrine and tradition, but who will presumably be represented in future DLC.

[Kerensky]

I still think there needs to be differentiation in the game between regular engineers and specialist urban/fortification assault troops. The present description as "pioneers" may work for Germans at the period the game covers, but won't work for many other armies who operate and are structured differently by doctrine and tradition, but who will presumably be represented in future DLC.

I don't see why not. The name of the game is 'Panzer', so it has that German focus as a matter of tradition. Everyone else gets 'engineers'. The Germans get 'pioniere'.

With additional content comes additional fleshing out.

You guys mention the specialist Soviet SMG infantry, but I must remind you, they did not exist in Panzer Corps 1.0. They didn't arrive until the Grand Campaign reached the Eastern Front, and I specifically wanted a unit that was a terror in urban environments, but pretty atrocious in open ground. Low attacks, low defense, high close defense, good initiative.

So to expect Allied rosters to expand/become more detailed as more of the content focuses on them specifically seems entirely reasonable.