Slitherine

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:32 am**

Razz1 wrote:That's why the Allies need more prestige and units to balance the game. The problem with that is the maps are too small. Hence you get a line up of units.

Many petitioned for more room to move. So a bigger map with more Allied units is the trick. The orginal PG had more room to move.

Well, I did the mod with the original PG's maps, and I can say this only partially solves the problem.
Mainly, the AI is just not exactly wise when deciding how to spend prestige, or so it seems.
It often leaves valuable, powerful units in an unrepaired state to buy yet another filler AA to surround one of it's cities with, round for round.
Also, the AI has some severe issues Rudankort would have to comment on (has he been banned from this board or something?).
When playing Operation Husky, I had the entire allied landing force hidden in the FOW in Sicily disappear, making my counter-offensive a cakewalk without resistance.
When playtesting the Ardennes scenario from my own campaign, the AI put up a decent fight on the first few turns, but then did very little to fortrify the in-between objectives - maybe it concentrated at Brussels, I couldn't tell, but it's a non-essential objective, so I essentially got a DV without much of a fight...
On the other hand, playing the Moscow maps from my campagin, I had a VERY hard time, because all the dug-in units, lots of rugged defense, bad weather, tight turn limit etc.

To sum up, just throwing prestige at the AI solves nothing, imo. I agree that a lot could be done with finely crafted scenarios, but that would mean almost a complete overhaul of the entire campaign...
_____
rezaf

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:18 am**

rezaf wrote: To sum up, just throwing prestige at the AI solves nothing, imo. I agree that a lot could be done with finely crafted scenarios, but that would mean almost a complete overhaul of the entire campaign...
_____
rezaf

Or some new ones.

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:05 am**

Kerensky wrote:Fair enough, but as I said in the other thread:

So lower ammo or lower stats (nerfs) on the Tiger II or a revamped and more complicated (and arbitrarily restricting) system? Not likely to happen. Possibly a price increase, but I highly doubt it, as it is the single most expensive unit in the game already.
However, buffing the usefulness and combat abilities of the more 'common' units such as PZ IVs, Shermans, and T34s to be more effective and abundant? Count on it.

So, has this been implemented in the latest patch?

I am playing a friend on this map and getting crushed. What is the key to stopping the monster tanks? When you mention anti tank units, are there infantry units that have zooks or just AT guns?

Thx,
jonpfl

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:58 pm**

Why would anyone want that ?

Tigers and Panthers were "top notch" at their time. So that has to show in the game.

To destroy them, you could

a) get a good tank (JS II)
b) mass attack with mediocre tanks or AT units
c) dive bomb them
d) suppress them with Art
e) demunition them with carpet bombing
e) attack them in close quarters with inf

and maybe some more ways

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:03 pm**

I am playing a friend on this map and getting crushed. What is the key to stopping the monster tanks? When you mention anti tank units, are there infantry units that have zooks or just AT guns?

None of the MP maps gives you enough prestige to just get Tiger IIs or other high-end armor units. On The Frozen North, for instance, I think the German player can get at most 3 Tiger IIs and absolutely no other support units from the get-go. These tanks are not only expensive to buy, but expensive to reinforce too, and not very good without support units.

If I ever see someone get all heavy armor, I will employ delaying tactics and try to pick off their support units. Against infantry, Tiger IIs are fairly useless without artillery support, not that you want to commit them to fighting off infantry anyway, as they are much more useful against enemy armor. They are also somewhat vulnerable to TAC attacks. The other thing to do is to attack in a different area. If you see a bunch of Tiger IIs in one sector, that means your opponent has nothing of significance anywhere else on the map. Tiger IIs, with their speed of 4, take forever to be sent to somewhere else on a map.

This is why I personally love the high-movement units like the Jadgpanther, or the cheap AT units like the StuGs. One Tiger II is plenty for me in games where I can buy them.

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:18 pm**

deducter wrote:
I am playing a friend on this map and getting crushed. What is the key to stopping the monster tanks? When you mention anti tank units, are there infantry units that have zooks or just AT guns?
None of the MP maps gives you enough prestige to just get Tiger IIs or other high-end armor units. On The Frozen North, for instance, I think the German player can get at most 3 Tiger IIs and absolutely no other support units from the get-go. These tanks are not only expensive to buy, but expensive to reinforce too, and not very good without support units.

If I ever see someone get all heavy armor, I will employ delaying tactics and try to pick off their support units. Against infantry, Tiger IIs are fairly useless without artillery support, not that you want to commit them to fighting off infantry anyway, as they are much more useful against enemy armor. They are also somewhat vulnerable to TAC attacks. The other thing to do is to attack in a different area. If you see a bunch of Tiger IIs in one sector, that means your opponent has nothing of significance anywhere else on the map. Tiger IIs, with their speed of 4, take forever to be sent to somewhere else on a map.

This is why I personally love the high-movement units like the Jadgpanther, or the cheap AT units like the StuGs. One Tiger II is plenty for me in games where I can buy them.

Well, there is my problem. I have already lost a bunch of cities/airfields so he has more prestige.

Just learning the game so now my next mplayer game will go better.

Thx for tips!
jonpfl

Posted: **Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:45 pm**

Molve wrote:The general problem, as I see it, is that there is no notion of historic ratios between different tanks.

Prestige is a too-simple tool to encompass all of this.

As I see it; prestige is an "after the fact" "objective" analysis of each unit's worth; and as such, it's fine.

But the WW powers did not have this information available!

Why would you as the Americans build lots of Shermans in PC (and PG games) when you have better tanks available?
Why wouldn't you as the Soviets build lots of KVs instead of all that other junk; or too much infantry instead of units more suited to Blitzkrieg?
Why wasn't all German end-war tanks Tiger IIs?

To truly solve this; you would need ratios such as "for every KV tank you build, you need nine T-34s".

Or at least, for the prestige costs to take into account survivability to a greater degree.

If you could accomplish as much with a twice as large obsolete Panzer IV army as you can with a King Tiger army (assuming you get two PzIV's for the price of one Tiger II) then the costs would be fine, and the only problem would be "learn to play".

Problem is that with skillful play, you won't allow your precious Tigers to be surrounded and run out of fuel (the rest of your army carries your back) and you can simply accomplish more when your attacks carry real oomph.

Perhaps if the maps were unbounded/limitless, then you would see the value of having a twice as large army; and then the prestige costs would be fine. But in PC you only need a strike force of the critical size; then it's better to go for quality than quantity.

Hi all!

I think there would be a solution to a problem similar to this. The main problem is that when a unit type becomes available, then you can buy/upgrade any quantity of/to it if you have enough prestige. IMHO this is historically not-so-good. So what if we multiply its original cost by 1.5 (or perhaps 1.7 or 1.8 etc., as Devs wish) when it is brand-new, and distract 0.1 from the multiplier each months thereafter until it reaches its "basic" cost (the "1" multiplier)? A little bit tricky but it can be done I think.

For example (of course prestige and date are not correct, I write it only for simplicity) a King Tiger's basic cost is 1000, and its date of appearance is 10.1944. So you can buy a King Tiger for 1500 in October (like some kind of extra-expensive "prototype unit"

), for 1400 in November, for 1300 in December, for 1200 in January, for 1100 in February and for 1000 from March (historically to May

) .

Upgrade costs would be similar, also for "unit chains". For ex.: you have a Panther worth 600, and you want to upgrade it to King Tiger in October 1944. Then you have to pay the whole 1500. But if you have a "simple"

Tiger worth 700 and this is what you want to upgrade ASAP, you "only" have to pay the difference, 800 prestige. (As far as I know, Tiger and King Tiger are in the same "chain", but not sure.) From March '45 it would be only 300.

It would not solve the problem entirely but after all this is a game where You decide, upgrade and build

And it would make the game more difficult and more realistic IMHO.

Slitherine

Tiger II issue