why are half-track upgrades so expensive?

[impar]

There is no point in buying some types of units because they have a dead end upgrade path. Take tanks for instance. You shouldn't buy too many early as the cost of a PZIII is the same, new or not. However, if you get PZIII, you have to pay full price to get PZIV. Then you get Tigers and Panthers, you have to pay full for upgrade or new again! Talk about confusing.

There is an easy solution.
Since experience doesnt matter what it should matter, you just use regular reinforcements, once your "end of the road" equipment is obsolete (PzIII when PzIV is the better tank, PzIV when Tiger\Panther is the better tank, Me109 when Fw190 is the better fighter, etc) just disband it in the preparation screen, receive back the prestige and use it to get the new equipment.
Prestige is not lost at all.

The end result of the implemented incremental upgrade path and the devalue of unit experince in combat is the prestige waste elite reinforcements have become.
If the player hasnt invested in elite reinforcements, he can always have the best equipment by disbanding the obsolete equipment and using that prestige to get the best available equipment.

Just check the upgrade path of strategic bombers.
In Poland the player doesnt need them, in Norway the better bomber is the Ju88 but many players now choose the He111 to incrementally upgrade it to He177, the best available german bomber.
However, between the Ju88 and He111 era and the He177 era there is a better bomber that pratically no one uses, the Do217 and it is available relatively early in Greece\Barbarrosa.
If the player hasnt invested into elite reinforcements in the early bombers (Ju88 and He111) he can easily disband them and use that prestige for the Do217, when the He177 becomes available just disband the Do217 and get the He177.

[Tarrak]

I disagree that prestige do not matter in Panzer Corps. Units with some experience perform better then units without just the difference is not as huge as it was in PG. I personally like the change. In PG losing a highly experienced core unit from the middle of the campaign on virtually meant you have to reload from a save. Even if you could easily afford a replacement unit, it would just plain suck compared to the experienced units of the AI. In PC consequences of losing a unit are a lot less dire. You can replace it and carry on and while it does hinder you enough so you want to be careful with your units it does not force you to reload/restart.

[Mercutio]

Well as a newbie you should play on some lower difficulty level and then prestige is no problem at all. Someone posted that he had more then 100k prestige spare after reaching the USA. Even on colonel level prestige is usually not a problem at all. You may be not able to afford to upgrade all your core units instantly to the best ones, especially when all the 43 versions of infantry, Tigers , Panthers and FW190 become available in short time span but you do not need any extensive long drawn plans of only buying the units can can be updated most effectively. Field Marshal level may put you here and there at some prestige shortage but we are talking highest difficulty level in the whole game (except the hidden ones). This is meant to pose a challenge to experienced players who knows about the upgrade paths and everything and tbh .. even there you do not need to overly optimize.

I like the additional planing depth the upgrade paths including the dead ends adds. Either i have the option to make myself the early scenarios easier by buying the currently best equipment at the danger of eventually having to wait later to be able to upgrade to end war high end units or i suffer more difficulty early but make myself the end game easier by planing ahead and optimizing my prestige costs in the long term.

I think you totally missed the argument Kerensky and me was trying to make. Adding a few more transports with same movement and defense values almost identical but being able to drag different kind of equipments do not add any real depth to the games but add unneeded complexity. You will have to find out what maximal weight which transport can drag, how heavy which equipment is and chose properly ... at the end all guns still end moving at same speed and having same values when in transporters so whats the point?

I always start at a medium level of a game (Colonel in this case). After blowing through some scenarios and always getting decisive, I started over at General. That was harder, but I always at least got Marginal. I hadn't hit the big upgrade year yet. When I got there after Stalingrad, all the sudden my stuff was ancient and the Soviets was top notch. I still pulled a marginal, but the cost was enormous in units. So essentially I played 20+ hours to learn about the upgrade/prestige system and had to start over. Renaming and nursing my troops was kind of pointless. Now that is frustrating.

So I started over at General and get decisive now each time, but those are the beginning scenarios. Additionally, those scenarios are getting stale because I have already played them. The only thing I can equate it to would be if you were in college with the idea of getting a four year degree. You decide to get a PHD and they made you start back in High School, but with harder classes. So you go through it again and decide on a masters. Well, back to High School again!

I get the point on transport, except for one thing. How come a half-track can drag huge pieces of Arty, AA and AD around at the same speed as a group of infantry? Usually larger things are transported by larger vehicles. The larger the payload, the lower the speed.

I don't understand that if I disband my units and buy a bigger/better one, I get the prestige of the previous unit. Doing so, I loose the experienced crew. If I upgrade the unit and keep the crew, I don't get the prestige of the replaced tank.

Don't get me wrong, I like the game very much. This is one of the most confusing and least documented parts of playing the game. You would help new players immensely by better documentation and cleaning it up a bit.

[impar]

Units with some experience perform better then units without just the difference is not as huge as it was in PG.

Yes, units with more experience perform better than the same unit with no experience.
The question is if an inferior unit with experience performs better than a superior unit with no expericene.
Does a He111 (bought to incrementally upgrade later to He177) with 2-3 stars perform better than an inexperienced Do217?
Do217 has +1 ammo, +68 fuel, +1 movement, +3 initiative, +4 soft attack, +4 hard attack, +5 air attack, +3 naval attack. It is the best available german bomber for 4-5 scenarios, yet no one uses it because of the invested prestige in the obsolete He111.

[Tarrak]

I always start at a medium level of a game (Colonel in this case). After blowing through some scenarios and always getting decisive, I started over at General. That was harder, but I always at least got Marginal. I hadn't hit the big upgrade year yet. When I got there after Stalingrad, all the sudden my stuff was ancient and the Soviets was top notch. I still pulled a marginal, but the cost was enormous in units. So essentially I played 20+ hours to learn about the upgrade/prestige system and had to start over. Renaming and nursing my troops was kind of pointless. Now that is frustrating.

This is exactly what i did and i did not have any problems upgrading all my infantry and tanks to the newest equipment available. Especially in Stalingrad scenario there aren't many expensive upgrades available, except the Tiger I, which becomes available in the middle of the scenario. Even in the next scenario which is Kursk, where all the 43 versions of infantry, Tigers (ok as i said they was already available in the middle of previous scenario but upgrading during a scenario is anyway a major waste of time imho) Panthers, Fw190s become available i was able to upgrade most of my units. I do not have the save anymore so i can not check it exactly but if memory serves i could upgrade all my infantry tanks and about half of my fighters instantly. Maybe your loses up to this point was to high and you lost to much prestige on reinforcement and replacing units?

Now i see how one can perceive this as frustrating but isn't it more like lesson learned, i need to perform better? In every thing we do we get better in time, if you succeed at something instantly it usually just indicate the task was to easy in the first place and there is no sense of accomplishment for doing it. Now i understand different people may have less time to invest into the game or just be less experienced with strategy games but thats what the difficulty levels are for. It's no shame to start on Lieutenant and it makes the game easier and a lot more accesible. In worst case there is still the Sergeant level but this is so easy i really would not recommend that as its no fun at all.

So I started over at General and get decisive now each time, but those are the beginning scenarios. Additionally, those scenarios are getting stale because I have already played them. The only thing I can equate it to would be if you were in college with the idea of getting a four year degree. You decide to get a PHD and they made you start back in High School, but with harder classes. So you go through it again and decide on a masters. Well, back to High School again!

I see and understand your frustration but i think your comparison is a bit wrong but tbh. i can not think of better one. Anyway, i think most of your frustration comes from the fact that you actually stopped in the middle of campaign you perceived as to easy and cranked up the difficulty level without noticing that the later war scenarios become more difficult anyway. Now you are stuck there through a combination of both difficulty increasing factors. While this is not documented anywhere it is the case in most games that it becomes progressively harder.

I see three possible solutions there:

1. If you still have the old saves from your colonel campaign try to continue this again. The reduced difficulty level may allow you to beat the game easier.
2. You can just carry on with your current settings and accept the fact that you will lose. Even or maybe even especially when losing you can learn a lot more about the game and as the campaign is dynamic this allows you to play different scenarios then on the winning path, it's something i plan to do myself as well soon. Play the "losing" way.
3. Just take a break from the campaign. If you still want to play the game take a look at the different mods, some of them got very entertaining player made campaigns. Play this for a change in scenery and then come back to the stock campaign later. After a break it won't hopefully feel so "stale".

I get the point on transport, except for one thing. How come a half-track can drag huge pieces of Arty, AA and AD around at the same speed as a group of infantry? Usually larger things are transported by larger vehicles. The larger the payload, the lower the speed.

Panzer Corps and Panzer General are both Beer and Pretzel level games. They involve a huge abstraction level. I am happy with the fact that all vehicles are dragged by the same transporter, even if it's historically and logically a bit off. Of course the developer can make some different transporter models and assign the to the proper types of troops but it seems to me like a lot work for no real gain. I prefer the limited developer resources to be rather invested somewhere else like f.e. more content or improving the AI. On the other hand if they get added i won't cry about it.

I don't understand that if I disband my units and buy a bigger/better one, I get the prestige of the previous unit. Doing so, I loose the experienced crew. If I upgrade the unit and keep the crew, I don't get the prestige of the replaced tank.

Don't get me wrong, I like the game very much. This is one of the most confusing and least documented parts of playing the game. You would help new players immensely by better documentation and cleaning it up a bit.

You have the option to either get your prestige back and lose the experience or keep the experience but lose prestige. Think about the first like sending your old unit back to the HQ which then reallocate it to somewhere else and you get a new green unit and the second is more like keeping your crew and buying them a new equipment. Seems quite logical to me, of course at the abstract level of PC. But i agree totally with you that the this could be a lot better documented and explained. It would make it easier especially for newcomers. I think the limited development resources problem strikes here again.

[impar]

This is exactly what i did and i did not have any problems upgrading all my infantry and tanks to the newest equipment available.

Have you tried Rommel?

[Tarrak]

Units with some experience perform better then units without just the difference is not as huge as it was in PG.

Yes, units with more experience perform better than the same unit with no experience.
The question is if an inferior unit with experience performs better than a superior unit with no expericene.
Does a He111 (bought to incrementally upgrade later to He177) with 2-3 stars perform better than an inexperienced Do217?
Do217 has +1 ammo, +68 fuel, +1 movement, +3 initiative, +4 soft attack, +4 hard attack, +5 air attack, +3 naval attack. It is the best available german bomber for 4-5 scenarios, yet no one uses it because of the invested prestige in the obsolete He111.

Nothing stops you from buying it except the fact that it will cost you more prestige in the long run. From my experience even on FM prestige is not that scarce that you need to optimize it to the last degree, it just a human nature that we like to find the absolute optimum. I personally like it that there is no absolute optimum in PC. Either i want and instant power boost and upgrade to the Do217 or i want long term power boost and i stick with the inferior He111 to be abel to get later on the all powerful He177 cheap or even if i think experience does not matter enough i can disband the He111, buy the Do217 and then again disband it when He177 becomes available that way i always have the most up to date unit albeit at the costs of less experience. All three are valid and possible choices in PC without one being the superior one have to take to be successful and choices are good. I personally tend to even go with a fourth way: I usually start with Ju88A level bombers and stick to them until the He177 becomes available and then upgrade them when/if i can afford it.

[Tarrak]

This is exactly what i did and i did not have any problems upgrading all my infantry and tanks to the newest equipment available.

Have you tried Rommel?

Not yet but i fully expect to have problems there. We are talking about an additional difficulty level that is meant to be really hard. If or rather when i hit problems there i won't complain about upgrade paths making it to hard or something else. I will try to overcome this or fail and accept the fact that it may be to hard for me.

[impar]

Not yet but i fully expect to have problems there. We are talking about an additional difficulty level that is meant to be really hard. If or rather when i hit problems there i won't complain about upgrade paths making it to hard or something else. I will try to overcome this or fail and accept the fact that it may be to hard for me.

For me Rommel has been an eye opener.
Experience really doesnt matter what I thought it mattered.
And upgrades paths I had rejected have become the right ones.


My opinion regarding transports;
- horses need to be added to light towed units
- heavier (non-armed) halftrack must be available for light and heavy towed units
- 250 was used to tow?

[Mercutio]

Tarrak,

I get what you are saying, but I don't think you get what I am.
I am familiar with Strategy games and played all the PG way back when as well as several, much more grognard games. I played Colonel to get a feel for it and it was too easy.

I read General was were the AI was "unleashed" to use all three ai levels. Ok, start over.
Took a bit to get the feel and I kept coming up just short of decisive, but that seemed like a good thing. I got better, spent too much on in game prestige to make sure my core lived on. I should have noticed prestige was too expensive for lower experienced units and is really no good unless you have at least two stars. Also, save replacing strength at the end. My fault somewhat for not noticing it sooner.

Still, even when "winning", because I had wasted prestige waaaaaaaaay back when, the AI forces jump was massive after Stalingrad. Even though I won a marginal, it took everything I had. While I don't mind "lessons learned" it was more like a boss level where if you didn't find the "Sword of Whatzit" in the beginning,which you never knew about, you can't win.

To me, it would make more sense if you want to keep the crew and upgrade, the upgrade cost is discounted from selling the old equipment, but cost you prestige based on the amount of experience the crew attained. I can see upgrading a PZIII to a Panther and given the option to "retrain" the crew for "X". If you don't, you loose "Y" experience for the unit. Just throwing out ideas here

Sure it is worth it currently to upgrade and accept the extra cost for a 4 star unit. Not a one star and probably not a two star though. Nowhere did I notice disbanding would give me back prestige. I found that out on the forums.

I am just trying to make suggestions to help out. If you want disagree with everything and keep it as is, you are entitled to that opinion. As I said, restarting at General is now a piece of cake from lessons learned. Please, no more talk of going back to Colonel or less, etc. My point isn't the difficulty levels. My point is the lack of understanding from the start of the upgrade paths, prestige system, large jumps of difficulty in some scenarios and general lack of documentation.

cheers

[Tarrak]

For me Rommel has been an eye opener.
Experience really doesnt matter what I thought it mattered.
And upgrades paths I had rejected have become the right ones.

Importance of upgrade paths of course change with the amount of prestige you have available. When you swamped with prestige costs of units do not matter at all. On the other hand i personally do not think the game is really balanced with the additional difficulties i mind. The absolute shortage on prestige in Rommel simply probably puts way to much emphasis on the upgrade paths then actually intended in a game on normal difficulty level.

How it change the importance of experience tho i fail to see. The problem here tho is without any hard data we can discuss it in circles for ages. When i find some spare time i will run some tests and post some hard facts then we can see how much experience matter. I think about a test map pitching same units with different experience levels vs each other and playing it quite a lot of times to avoid RNG quirks to interfere to much with the outcome.

My opinion regarding transports;
- horses need to be added to light towed units
- heavier (non-armed) halftrack must be available for light and heavy towed units
- 250 was used to tow?

While i do not disagree here i do not see the point except maybe for historical reasons. Game wise this will change nothing. As i said already multiple times nice to have but considering the limited development resources i rather have the devs working on things with more game impact.

[Ranta]

hi

one has to have in mind, that many availability issues become obsolete with the dlc, such that the gab after stalingrad is not that big equipment wise (and in other cases).

on the other hand, i miss prestige settings between fm and rommel, while the first may offer a little to much, the latter i so harsh that may games tend to be some save and reload excess (with nothing like a complete core or such).

Best regards

Ranta

PS I love the upgrade paths , as a difference to panzer general

[Mercutio]

Bagration, that was the one that got me. If I won Stalingrad and Kursk, even as a marginal, it seemed like I was being punished as much as if I had lost.

[edahl1980]

Bagration, that was the one that got me. If I won Stalingrad and Kursk, even as a marginal, it seemed like I was being punished as much as if I had lost.

Well. Germany lost the war. Deal with it.
Besides Bagration isnt that hard, you just need to think and play defensively for a change.

[Mercutio]

Bagration, that was the one that got me. If I won Stalingrad and Kursk, even as a marginal, it seemed like I was being punished as much as if I had lost.

Well. Germany lost the war. Deal with it.
Besides Bagration isnt that hard, you just need to think and play defensively for a change.

Germany lost?? Really? Anything else insightful you have?

I actually won the scenario, barely. 1st time at it that one. So I am not as skilled as you at this game. Guess I should just kill myself.

[MartyWard]

There is no point in buying some types of units because they have a dead end upgrade path. Take tanks for instance. You shouldn't buy too many early as the cost of a PZIII is the same, new or not. However, if you get PZIII, you have to pay full price to get PZIV. Then you get Tigers and Panthers, you have to pay full for upgrade or new again! Talk about confusing. As a newbie, you think it is a no brainer to get the best and latest, to find out you should have saved the prestige to get the better stuff later. Artillery and infantry upgrade nicely. Even some airplane paths. Tanks (especially late) and transports, nope.

I get Panthers and Tigers are entirely different chassis than PZIII or IV. PZ IV is different than III. A newbie has no clue and buys a bunch of PZ IIIs is hosed. Upgrade each time for those tanks, it will cost you upgrading to PZIV later, but you don't know when you start. So then you upgrade the IVs each time and then have to pony up full again for the next level.

I use the Pz III's and PZ IV's as my path for future upgrades. I buy Pz III's when they are good with the idea that these will become my Panthers once available. Then I upgrade and use the PV IV's up to the H version, because they aren't bad given what they are facing, then begin upgrading to them Tiger II's. By Bagration/Overlord I usually have 3-4 Panthers and 5-6 Tiger II's plus whatever SE armour I have received. Doing it this way lets me visualize what my force will eventually look like.

[Mercutio]

That is good advice, Marty.

I got all that... now. Perhaps I ramble too much. The point is the documentation gives no clue to this stuff. The new user has no idea how it works until later on. There is no upgrade/tech tree to go by and explaination of spending prestige during vs after a battle, etc.

We can argue mechanics until we are blue.

[aleader]

Ya, I think you should get 100P credit for trading your old halftrack when upgrading to the better model, so the net cost is 100P. Other units, like tanks, let you upgrade within the same class for the difference in cost. I think the halftracks should be in the same class, so you don't have to pay full price when upgrading. Another thing I'd like to see is credit when disbanding your transport during the Deploy phase. If you disband any other unit, you get the Prestige back: except the transports. Sometimes, I like taking my fallschirmjagers out of their transports on certain scenarios (gebirgsjagers are another one that I sometimes like out of their transports). Both of those units have special properties when not in their transports. Problem is that it can get very expensive when you get no credit for disbanding them and, then, have to buy them back at full price for the next scenario.

I agree with this 100%. Should be able to get credit for going from an already purchased truck to a halftrack.