Slitherine

Regarding "ressurrection"...
An unit is lost in a scenario,
in the preparation screen of the next scenario a popup appears (similar to the SE award popup) asking if the player wants to rebuild the unit,
if the player says yes, the Heroes are preserved, the battle history is preserved and the experience is reduced to 10% of what the unit used to have, the player would spend 1,5 times the cost of a similar green unit,
if the player says no, the unit is lost forever.

rezaf wrote:Example: Many players (I wasn't one of them) missed tank overrun from PG2.

Oh, yeah. Four months of PzC and still miss it.

Could write a novel about this, but...:

1. Abraxes, you can do it! You will also become a better player and have more fun in the long run when you deal with surprisingly bad or good outcomes. It's part of the game, it's not entirely predictable what will happen. I will spare you to quote Clausewitz on that.

2. I totally support what Ian McNeill said about the randomness in the game, trying to make random less random is a wrong approach.

3. Serious concerns about the overrun concept, which would incredibly favor single super strong units. This would really screw up balance.


Lock & Load, accept losses and maybe think about your strategy, if losing one unit screws up the plan it probably wasn't a good plan to begin with. Have fun.

Longasc wrote: Lock & Load, accept losses and maybe think about your strategy, if losing one unit screws up the plan it probably wasn't a good plan to begin with. Have fun.

*Permanently* losing one unit doesn't screw up the plan - it screws up *my enjoyment* of the game because there is nothing that can be done to prevent it, regardless of how well you plan.

Unfortunately I cannot say too much on the matter until DLC 41 comes out, but if you play at a higher difficulty, you should expect the game to be harder and that you should lose units. Otherwise what is the point of the higher difficulty?

You're talking about 2 independent concepts - difficulty and loosing units. I've played easy strategy games where you lose units in droves. I've played hard strategy games where you don't lose a piece. There's no reason the concepts need be directly correlated.

There are many games where increasing ones own loses is a valid approach to increasing difficulty. In the case of Panzer Corp where a major appeal to the game is the RPG aspect of the core force **permanent** death makes as much sense for the **average player** as it would in a game like WoW or Everquest. There should be incentives to keep your units alive (prestige, experience) but given how unrealistically skewed casualties are and the fact that units, regardless of what size you think they abstractly represent, are composed of **groups of men** rather than single individuals the ability to reform without experience does not strike me as being particularly unrealistic. (aside from pockets how many German units were completely destroyed over the course of regular combat without so much as a cadre that could be rebuilt? Even in the case of pockets there were frequently WIAs around which a unit could be reconstituted in some form - ex 21st Panzer)

I don't much care for the idea of a game where I can't lose or nothing is really at risk. For me it would ruin the atmosphere of a 'war game' if I couldn't really permanently lose a unit. The whole idea is that you have to deal with the situation that develops (therefore the randomness and the risk of losing a unit) as a General, rather than as a superhero that can 'lose' but not really lose, if you know what I mean.

Besides, if you can't ever really lose a unit because it consists of many men and there's always something left of a real world 'destroyed' unit, then by extension you should also be losing heros of the war at random because they got unlucky and died...

boredatwork wrote: There are many games where increasing ones own loses is a valid approach to increasing difficulty. In the case of Panzer Corp where a major appeal to the game is the RPG aspect of the core force **permanent** death makes as much sense for the **average player** as it would in a game like WoW or Everquest. There should be incentives to keep your units alive (prestige, experience) but given how unrealistically skewed casualties are and the fact that units, regardless of what size you think they abstractly represent, are composed of **groups of men** rather than single individuals the ability to reform without experience does not strike me as being particularly unrealistic. (aside from pockets how many German units were completely destroyed over the course of regular combat without so much as a cadre that could be rebuilt? Even in the case of pockets there were frequently WIAs around which a unit could be reconstituted in some form - ex 21st Panzer)

Part of the reason why we like out units (or characters in RPG) is that they are more powerful than they were before. Combat history and awards are important, but if a unit loses his exp and maybe some of the heroes, it is no longer the same unit we loved. I remember in M&M6, when my party was killed, it retained all of its stats (not bad), but lost all of its hard-earned money (unless you kept it in bank, which I never bothered to do), and for me this was an instant reload. I felt that if I don't reload, part of my game, where I was looking for treasure, slaughtered monsters, gathered loot and sold it etc. - was lost. It is the same in PzC. I suspect that vast majority of people who don't like losing core units will reload even with no permanent death rule in place.

Rudankort, just an idea, and definately nothing short-term, but maybe for a future game of the series, should you get around to making it, you could consider something like the casualty-handling in the Fantasy Wars games.

In case you're not familiar with it, there are two methods of reducing the max strength of a unit, one represents flat-out kills and the other injuries. Injuries can be replaced in-mission, kills can not.
With such system, units that are destroyed but not all of their strength was killed could be moved into a pool from which they can be resurrected, with heroes and everything intact.
But all of this is irrelevant in the context of PzC.

Here, I find the (default) XP growth rate makes this almost irrelevant - I never named my units or something.
Losing one with a very good hero is painful (and usually makes me reload), but later on most heroes lose much of their worth anyway. A +1 Attack hero is great for a unit with 5 base attack, but for one with 20 base attack ... not so much. Maybe we can also - at some point in the distant future - get a system to customize heroes, or more complicated ones with combinations of flat and percentage values, like in the XP system?

Anyway, right now, I'm pretty content with how the mechanics work in this area.
_____
rezaf

Yes, I know how Fantasy General works, and for a fantasy-themed game that system is probably better than PG scheme. So I'll definitely consider it if I ever get to a fantasy game.

As for heroes, even +1 ones are quite useful, because unlike experience, they apply unconditionally. Which means +1 attack will be applied to HA, SA and AA (some of these are usually low even on late units), and +1 defense will apply to CD too (usually low on all units in the game). Initiative is always useful too. But yeah, I also want to see a more advanced hero system in the future, no objections to that.

Xitax wrote:I don't much care for the idea of a game where I can't lose or nothing is really at risk. For me it would ruin the atmosphere of a 'war game' if I couldn't really permanently lose a unit. The whole idea is that you have to deal with the situation that develops (therefore the randomness and the risk of losing a unit) as a General, rather than as a superhero that can 'lose' but not really lose, if you know what I mean.

Please explain to me how my suggestion results in a game "where I can't lose or nothing is really at risk."

Rudankort wrote:Yes, I know how Fantasy General works, and for a fantasy-themed game that system is probably better than PG scheme. So I'll definitely consider it if I ever get to a fantasy game.

As for heroes, even +1 ones are quite useful, because unlike experience, they apply unconditionally. Which means +1 attack will be applied to HA, SA and AA (some of these are usually low even on late units), and +1 defense will apply to CD too (usually low on all units in the game). Initiative is always useful too. But yeah, I also want to see a more advanced hero system in the future, no objections to that.

Cool, looking forward to a more advanced hero system then (though I do realize it might take quite a while before it actually comes to pass - no problem with that).
Finally something we don't seem to fundamentally disagree about.

I even agree that even the worst heroes like the +1 attack ones can still be useful - but a +movement or +initiative hero (for Inf or another low-base-ini-unit) can be more useful by orders of magnitude.

I think the Fantasy Wars (Fantasy General was the old SSI game that worked just like PG, no?) system could also be useful for a WW2 game - one number would be damaged, but repairable equipment and the other destroyed equipment. But I just wanted to throw the idea into the ring anyway, when, if, and for which game you'd consider implementing it is up to you.
_____
rezaf

Guys i love that too (having overrun for tanks but maybe only for a Veteran units, not for all units who has a hero). After all, heroes aren't so wide spreadly. I preffer for a better realism and for fun maybe a system ballance with less heroes for units, but the 2-3 that i REALLY care, that are like my childs (after all i take care of them and I "grow" that unit and take care not to loose), but the possibility to customize them: not only +1 atack, +1 defense but something like in Operation Barbarossa - The Struggle for Russia for one who knows the game( better atack on cities, higher ground, defence from infatery, AT ability increased, more fuel, more ammunition, higher chance to retreat, etc......). I'd Like to customise my heroes, let us decide what type of heroes we want. I usually preffer the stonger unit atack last to get the "kill", to give the final charge...
Bring back the choice of lyder type and the ability to customize them pls...from the pool maybe deppends on the exp. points they earned in previous campain.

Rudankort wrote:... I also want to see a more advanced hero system in the future, no objections to that.

A RPG-style system for units?

corneliul wrote:Bring back the choice of lyder type and the ability to customize them pls...from the pool maybe deppends on the exp. points they earned in previous campain.

While I also was fond of that system, it dates back from the very last SSI Panzer General titles, released many years after the original PG and the rest of the 5Star series.
Definately beyond the scope of PanzerCorps and possible expansions, I'd say.

impar wrote:A RPG-style system for units?

Heh, that's probably taking it a bit too far. Maybe in Panzer Corps (DLC/expansion) we could get the possibility to create custom hero types (with widely varied options for their effects) for mods and assign heroes to units in the editor, that'd be great, but anything worth bearing the name "RPG-style system" would be beyond the scope of the game system in my eyes.
_____
rezaf

rezaf wrote:Definately beyond the scope of PanzerCorps and possible expansions, I'd say.

Why does a 2011 game need to be restricted by what was done in an early-90s game? In Luis Guzman's PG2 Editor, the ability to assign a leader (one that is normally available randomly in the game) is a great bonus for modders. I don't understand why it couldn't be done with heroes in PzC.

El_Condoro wrote:Why does a 2011 game need to be restricted by what was done in an early-90s game? In Luis Guzman's PG2 Editor, the ability to assign a leader (one that is normally available randomly in the game) is a great bonus for modders. I don't understand why it couldn't be done with heroes in PzC.

Probably because hero support for any nation other than Germany does not exist yet.

The quote was that it couldn't be done. Modders are not restricted to Germany, so hopefully other nations' heroes are planned for the game - in the future.

El_Condoro wrote:The quote was that it couldn't be done. Modders are not restricted to Germany, so hopefully other nations' heroes are planned for the game - in the future.

Absolutely.

El_Condoro wrote:Why does a 2011 game need to be restricted by what was done in an early-90s game?

Maybe I misunderstood the statement, but I thought it was shooting at the leader pool stuff in PG4. I think that's beyond the scope of PzC because to properly implement it, you'd need to make a HOST of changes - enough to make the result a completely new game. As I wrote, I liked the leader pool, and if Rudankort ends up making something like it in a PzC sequel, more power to him, but I feel it'd change the game so substantially that it's beyond the scope of changes that could be covered by patches, DLC or even an addon. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's my view.

I'm guessing support for allied leaders isn't in because there's no official content where the player isn't playing germany - if such content will arrive, I'm sure support for allied leaders will come with it.
_____
rezaf

rezaf wrote:I'm guessing support for allied leaders isn't in because there's no official content where the player isn't playing germany - if such content will arrive, I'm sure support for allied leaders will come with it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
We're still in Panzer Corps Wehrmacht, but who knows what the future holds?

I am only thinking in a fairly limited way regarding heroes in mods - the ability to assign a specific hero or heroes to a unit. Some of the other suggestions along the RPG line are certainly much more complex. As the first year (6 months really) of the game's release, it's understandable that changes have been driven by official material releases (the DLCs) but I hope 2012 will see more enhancements to the Editor for modders, assigning heroes one of them.

Rudankort wrote:Yes, I know how Fantasy General works, and for a fantasy-themed game that system is probably better than PG scheme. So I'll definitely consider it if I ever get to a fantasy game.

I was just about to ask about something like that. I loved FG

As far as randomness goes, I'm no fan of losing a great core unit, but if it ever was that I could not lose it, Id risk it in much more often.

And my only real complaint with heros is the fact that if you randomly recieve one that isnt very helpful for a particular unit, you cant get rid of that hero and get a different one. (At least if you can, Ive never figured out how - I dont use any editors or anything)