Slitherine

El_Condoro
boredatwork

Thanks guys, and please don't be afraid to criticize any points you don't like about the game. We like it very much, especially when criticism is constructive.

Right !

The game IS balanced as it sits for most players and sales do play a huge part of the design. The sales from this game will fund the (hopefully) Desert game and the Allied version of the game. Most people do not regularly crush FM or Manstein levels with Pz VI's. So without any big re-design the better players can already do what they want.

You're paying too much attention to Deducter's complaint about not being challenged enough - the proposed change would NOT make the game ANY harder for the average player, nor would it prevent you from taking a core composed entirely of the best, which is why I can't understand your concerns.

Your statement that the SP game IS balanced for most players is TRUE - our argument is the METHOD by which that balance is achieved is flawed for EVERYONE, not just the most advanced players:

Currently the difficulty of a given scenario in the later DLCs is determined PRIMARILY by the core a player brings. For a given difficulty level there is ONE strategy (Best Equipment Available) that is so clearly "better" than all the rest and makes the game "easier" and multiple strategies that are harder (anything else): Taking Tigers at Prokorovka will **always** make that scenario easier than taking PzIVs for a given difficulty.

Now as you and Karensky point out, for most players - myself included - this is balanced out by being able to change difficulty level - If I want to play with all Tigers I need to play on a higher difficulty level. If I want to play with Mostly PzIIIs and IVs I need to choose a lower difficulty level to keep the challenge the same - agree?

Forgeting for a second deducter's problem that he's run out of higher difficulty levels to keep the game challenging, the reason the current approach is sub optimal for the **average** gamer is you've now locked yourself into ONE strategy for the game based on your skill and difficulty level you've chosen:

If I picked FM or Manstein to play a high quality core of Tigers and Panthers I couldn't decide mid campaign to switch to playing with PzIVs and JgPzs because it would become impossibly hard. Conversely if I chose to play at Colonel or ____? intendting to play with PzIIIs and IVs at Prokorovka I couldn't decide midway through to switch to Tigers and Elefants because the result would be boringly easy.


Forcing a player to restart the campaign on a different difficulty level or use cheat codes or self handicap to try out various strategies in a strategy game is an inadequate design, regardless of who the game is targetted at versus providing players with MULTIPLE EQUALLY CHALLENGING strategies (in this case Quantity vs Quality or some mix of both) APPROPRIATE FOR THE PLAYER'S SKILL on the ONE difficulty level he chooses to play on.



Again look at starcraft - I don't have to choose between playing on easy level or playing on brutal level if I want to try a marine heavy or battlecruiser heavy strategy respectively - I pick the level of difficulty that matches my skills and then can choose either strategy, or switch between them on the fly because they are all equally challenging. You can't really say Starcraft doesn't have popular appeal or only advanced players enjoy such a system.

I think we are going in circles here.

QFT

Rudankort wrote:El_Condoro
boredatwork

Thanks guys, and please don't be afraid to criticize any points you don't like about the game. We like it very much, especially when criticism is constructive.

/poke /poke

ability to reform destroyed core units

/poke /poke

Yes, simply keep a remnant, 1-2 strength points that represents the cadre, keeping experience and heroes intact would be a great help. 1944 and 1945 is depressing enough as it is.
The ability to replace just one point at a time would be great.
If there is a way to either redistribute heroes to different units or to have the game choose more appropriate heroes for different unit classes it would be a great morale booster.
The ability to upgrade units across different classes within general categories would be nice. Any plane unit could be made interchangeable, upgrading units from bombers to fighters for instance.

Hi Rudankort, nice to hear you speak.

The great thing about MP is that you still have tons and tons of choice to form your cores. There is a huge diversity of units. Look at these pictures from a recent patched game on Hylan I am playing. I am using all these units (Wespe, Panzer IIIN, Bf 109K) not because I'm gimping myself or out of some sense of historical accuracy. I am using these units because I think, from a powergaming standpoint, they are the best given the prestige I have to work with. There is no "right" answer for a core in MP, besides that you should maintain some balance between infantry/artillery/armor. Some players get more infantry, some more artillery, others more tanks. If you want to buy yourself as many Tiger IIs as you can afford (which some players do), you can too!


Deducter: British


Deducter: British


Deducter: Germans


Deducter: Germans

The difference between SP and MP I do have very real limits upon what I am allowed to do. In a system where the player has freedom to construct the core he wants, then MP is fundamentally flawed. Some guy comes on the forums and complains, "MP is stupid, I can't buy 13 King Tigers, I can't play the game I want," and the developers say "Well, we did promise that we would allow TOTAL freedom of core composition, and if he can't get whatever he wants in MP, we are violating our design principle."

You could argue that MP and SP are different, so different things are to be expected. Okay, I can accept that to an extent. But what's wrong about having strategic choices in single player? What's wrong with having all units have strengths and weaknesses in single player too? What's wrong with having a Tiger II in SP be a rare and expensive weapon, just like it is MP?

I accept that the current game engine has limitations, and I don't expect patch 1.06 to change this. I don't even expect the next expansion to change this. As I said, I think the DLCs are very good, and they are an experiment, or otherwise I wouldn't buy them. What we are debating is a fundamental design principle for any future games.

Hi there,

I purchased this DLC and was expecting to be able to select individual scenarios, is this not possible? All I can select is the GC.

Regards,

Blackie

deducter wrote:You could argue that MP and SP are different, so different things are to be expected. Okay, I can accept that to an extent. But what's wrong about having strategic choices in single player? What's wrong with having all units have strengths and weaknesses in single player too? What's wrong with having a Tiger II in SP be a rare and expensive weapon, just like it is MP?

I accept that the current game engine has limitations, and I don't expect patch 1.06 to change this. I don't even expect the next expansion to change this. As I said, I think the DLCs are very good, and they are an experiment, or otherwise I wouldn't buy them. What we are debating is a fundamental design principle for any future games.

Let me just say that there is nothing wrong with the points you mention, on the contrary, they were our design goals in the past and they will remain so in the future. I will be the first to admit that we are not quite there yet, especially in SP. The good news is, we have learnt a lot from stock campaign and grand campaign, and we are continuing to learn. Next time we go back to the drawing board, we should do better.

Rudankort - taking an advantage of your presence here, can you make motorized infantry dismout after being attacked ( in some future expansion ) ?

We had some nice discussion and pool here:

viewtopic.php?f=121&t=31985

deducter wrote:You could argue that MP and SP are different, so different things are to be expected. Okay, I can accept that to an extent. But what's wrong about having strategic choices in single player? What's wrong with having all units have strengths and weaknesses in single player too? What's wrong with having a Tiger II in SP be a rare and expensive weapon, just like it is MP?

Nothing is wrong with that. If it is just you and the AI you can play that way now and no one else need know

If you could afford to buy all the best units in MP do you think most people would? Do you think they would enjoy their game more or less if they did?

ivanov wrote:Rudankort - taking an advantage of your presence here, can you make motorized infantry dismout after being attacked ( in some future expansion ) ?

We had some nice discussion and pool here:

viewtopic.php?f=121&t=31985

I like that idea and the Kampfgruppe idea too, no unit is totally wiped out so you can keep your heroes and stars if you want. It's kind of tough breaking in a new unit in 44.

Rudankort wrote: The good news is, we have learnt a lot from stock campaign and grand campaign, and we are continuing to learn. Next time we go back to the drawing board, we should do better.

I anticipate Afrika Korps even more.

Blackie616 wrote:Hi there,

I purchased this DLC and was expecting to be able to select individual scenarios, is this not possible? All I can select is the GC.

Regards,

Blackie

The DLCs have been designed to play as a campaign - a series of scenarios - rather than as stand-alone scenarios. That said, you can play them stand-alone if you follow the instructions here from the Common Questions thread.

Just be aware that they have been balanced for campaign play and not stand-alone play.

Right, so still plodding my way through the scenarios, last night was Return to Jassywotsits (the one with the traitor Romanians). After Warsaw I thought this one was far more enjoyable. Have to admit to looking at the map for ages, going away for a smoke and a beer, coming back to look at the map and still undecided as to how I was going to set up. Eventually decided to ignore the right hand side of the map and use infantry as cover on the river bank. I set up the bulk of my forces up North with the heavy armour set to cover the initial gap between the two deployment zones. To make good use of the aux units I also made the decision to withdraw straight away in a couple of areas to give myself an aux reserve t oswap in and out of the cities as they got bashed up.

This worked up North, I did end up withdrawing a bit further in places but the line held, if a little creakily at times.

Meanwhile I had to go and deal with those backstabbing Romanians. Initially I used a couple of Stugs, a couple of infantry and a couple of Panthers to cover the line and then gradually withdrew units from the fight against the Russians to take each objective. Have to say overall the strategy worked really well, although it was a long term strategy and I only managed to get a DV on turn 22 (third difficulty level). What almost foxed me was a further Russian attack in the last few turns, I should've got used to Guard armies turning up by now! That was when the line really creaked and I lost one of my experienced SE Panther units keeping the line together:(

If you didnt realise, I enjoyed this scenario immensely. Once the strategy was decided on the game play was fairly straightforward, but there were a few surprises on the way, I am minded to send a bill to the Romanian government for the Tiger they pinched.

Again, sorry to go against the general discussion on cores and balancing above, I enjoy having a fair amount of freedom as to what I want in my core. I do have plenty of Tiger IIs, but only three of them came out for this scenario, just because I thought it was more suited to Panthers as I wanted speed getting to and from the fronts and my airforce and AA stuff came out in full after reading the briefing (wisely so!). I would still like the possibility of playing the scenarios with 37 Tiger IIs if the mood so took me, rather than say 20odd top tanks if there was a prestige cap. But that is a personal view form a not very experienced player. Still loving this DLC and its feeling of impending doom.

Yea, that first time you fight in Romania you have to reinforce the Romanian line because the Soviets hammer them pretty hard. The second time though, you are caught between the Russians AND the Romanians. I'm not surprised you gave that deployment map a good, hard look.

Bonners wrote:Again, sorry to go against the general discussion on cores and balancing above, I enjoy having a fair amount of freedom as to what I want in my core. I do have plenty of Tiger IIs, but only three of them came out for this scenario, just because I thought it was more suited to Panthers as I wanted speed getting to and from the fronts and my airforce and AA stuff came out in full after reading the briefing (wisely so!). I would still like the possibility of playing the scenarios with 37 Tiger IIs if the mood so took me, rather than say 20odd top tanks if there was a prestige cap. But that is a personal view form a not very experienced player. Still loving this DLC and its feeling of impending doom.

Food for thought:

If the developers had released the scenario with a 35 unit limit would you have known any better to complain that 35 Tiger IIs isn't enough, and that not having the possibility of choosing 37 Tiger IIs was severely affecting your enjoyment of the game? For that matter why are you satisfied with the possibility of only 37 Tiger II and not 40? Or 50? Or 100 for that scenario?

I'm sure you realise to keep it challenging for you, means the developers have to impose some form of limit to the size of your core appropriate to the scenario they designed or you would find it too easy - hence the reason you said ***FAIR*** amount of freedom, as opposed to ***total*** freedom.


Now forget PzC for a moment:

Imagine two kids at christmas - Bonners who really likes $60 Xbox games, while his brother Boredatwork likes $15 action figures. Both are given $240 by their grandparents. There is no reason why you can't get 4x$60 games if that is your desire, it's your money after all.

However you may not realise that what you are effectively arguing for is, in your opinion, it's not fair that I, who likes cheaper toys, should be allowed to buy more toys than you, despite the fact my action figures cost 1/4 of what your games cost - if you can only have 4 xbox games then I should only have 4 action figures.

All we're arguing for with the prestige cap as opposed to a unit cap is what the developers originally intended - IF you're allowed to spend YOUR money how you see fit and buy 4x$60 games then *FAIR* freedom to choose means we should be allowed to spend OUR money how we see fit to buy 16x$15 figures for the same money.




Again this does NOT increase the difficulty of the game for you OR reduce your freedom of choice - If you need 37 King Tigers to beat a scenario at your chosen difficulty level the prestige cap will be balanced around allowing you to deploy those same 37 king tigers.

The difference is before, if it took 37 King Tigers (37x1000=37000 prestige) just to beat a scenario then that is the ONLY choice you have because 37 PzIVs (37x500=18500 prestige) would be much harder, if not impossible to achieve similar results. However if a player had the opportunity to buy 74 PzIVs (74x500=37000) then all of a sudden he has *REAL FREEDOM* to choose because 37 Tiger IIs or 74 PzIVs or any mix of the two totalling 37000 prestige and all should be approximately equally challenging to play ***without having to change difficulty levels or cheat or self handicap***.

It won't make all possible combinations equally viable (an all recon force for example, or PzIs in 1945) nor should it - but it should still greatly expand the number of viable equipment choices beyond the current 1 or 2 no brainer optimal choices we have now thus improving game replayability.

^ If the designers change the game to a prestige cap game then sure as I'm sitting here people will start complaining that they can't field enough of whatever their favorite unit is to play the way they want. They will be told to just use the cheat codes to change the prestige cap.

MartyWard wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flM0bTc3xyk&t=0m59s

People will complain either way - if a change makes the game better *by default* for everyone, including them, whether or not they realize the fact, then the developers will do it.

Again if you can have 37 Tiger IIs now and still have 37 Tiger IIs under the prestige cap system at NO CHANGE IN DIFFICULTY to yourself, how the **** does it impact your enjoyment of the game to allow me to have 74 PzIVs in the same scenario as the DEFAULT option?

boredatwork wrote:

Bonners wrote:Again, sorry to go against the general discussion on cores and balancing above, I enjoy having a fair amount of freedom as to what I want in my core. I do have plenty of Tiger IIs, but only three of them came out for this scenario, just because I thought it was more suited to Panthers as I wanted speed getting to and from the fronts and my airforce and AA stuff came out in full after reading the briefing (wisely so!). I would still like the possibility of playing the scenarios with 37 Tiger IIs if the mood so took me, rather than say 20odd top tanks if there was a prestige cap. But that is a personal view form a not very experienced player. Still loving this DLC and its feeling of impending doom.

Food for thought:

If the developers had released the scenario with a 35 unit limit would you have known any better to complain that 35 Tiger IIs isn't enough, and that not having the possibility of choosing 37 Tiger IIs was severely affecting your enjoyment of the game? For that matter why are you satisfied with the possibility of only 37 Tiger II and not 40? Or 50? Or 100 for that scenario?

I'm sure you realise to keep it challenging for you, means the developers have to impose some form of limit to the size of your core appropriate to the scenario they designed or you would find it too easy - hence the reason you said ***FAIR*** amount of freedom, as opposed to ***total*** freedom.


Now forget PzC for a moment:

Imagine two kids at christmas - Bonners who really likes $60 Xbox games, while his brother Boredatwork likes $15 action figures. Both are given $240 by their grandparents. There is no reason why you can't get 4x$60 games if that is your desire, it's your money after all.

However you may not realise that what you are effectively arguing for is, in your opinion, it's not fair that I, who likes cheaper toys, should be allowed to buy more toys than you, despite the fact my action figures cost 1/4 of what your games cost - if you can only have 4 xbox games then I should only have 4 action figures.

All we're arguing for with the prestige cap as opposed to a unit cap is what the developers originally intended - IF you're allowed to spend YOUR money how you see fit and buy 4x$60 games then *FAIR* freedom to choose means we should be allowed to spend OUR money how we see fit to buy 16x$15 figures for the same money.




Again this does NOT increase the difficulty of the game for you OR reduce your freedom of choice - If you need 37 King Tigers to beat a scenario at your chosen difficulty level the prestige cap will be balanced around allowing you to deploy those same 37 king tigers.

The difference is before, if it took 37 King Tigers (37x1000=37000 prestige) just to beat a scenario then that is the ONLY choice you have because 37 PzIVs (37x500=18500 prestige) would be much harder, if not impossible to achieve similar results. However if a player had the opportunity to buy 74 PzIVs (74x500=37000) then all of a sudden he has *REAL FREEDOM* to choose because 37 Tiger IIs or 74 PzIVs or any mix of the two totalling 37000 prestige and all should be approximately equally challenging to play ***without having to change difficulty levels or cheat or self handicap***.

It won't make all possible combinations equally viable (an all recon force for example, or PzIs in 1945) nor should it - but it should still greatly expand the number of viable equipment choices beyond the current 1 or 2 no brainer optimal choices we have now thus improving game replayability.

The bottom line is that your proposal should just be an OPTION, not a standard default element of the game.

Zhivago wrote:
The bottom line is that your proposal should just be an OPTION, not a standard default element of the game.

No, again the bottom line is if under the new system, without requiring cheats you can still build YOUR core EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS YOU CAN NOW and NOT CHANGE THE DIFFICULTY for yourself - how does it impact YOUR enjoyment of the game if the new system will SIMULTANEOUSLY allow me to build MY CORE using greater numbers of cheaper units than I can currently so that both our cores are equally competitive without requiring cheats?