Germans vs. italians in the core

[Ballacraine]

Regarding "Nation slots":

Maybe we could have quality "tier" slots: Few "high" quality slots, a lot of "medium" and infinite "low" quality slots.
But this would not work right now and is more something for future Panzer Corps games, as it would change things too much.

It would be like having only 4-5 "high quality" units available in every scenario.

Say 20 units can be deployed, 4 of the "High quality" tier, 10 of the medium quality tier at max the rest can be filled up with "low" quality units.
This would allow for only 4 Tigers or 3 Tigers and 1 Me262 setups, making things more difficult but also preventing 16 Maus Tanks and 4 Me262 or something like that defensive scenarios.

But for PzC Afrika Korps this is of course too late, more something to think about for the future.

In general terms, I think this is a good way to go.
If you were to regard the higher quality units in a similar ratio to the occurence of elite units, say no more than 20% of core units.
Following that through say 30% medium quality units and the remaining 50% basic low quality.

Make it optional at campaign start up though, so those that exclusively want Tiger 2s and Me262s can still have their fun.

Balla.

[Ballacraine]

I think, it is clear by now that, whatever approach we choose, making Italians as useful as possible will benefit the gameplay. They do have some nice units already, like the above mentioned Bersaglieri. They've also got some pretty special units, like the Sahariana recon which can switch to infantry. What else can we do to improve them, without bending historical reality and unbalancing the equipment file? Please post any suggestions to this topic too. Stats changes, price reductions etc. Maybe making (some of) their AA units switchable like FlaK88? Any ideas are welcome.

IIRC there were Air Defense units & AA units in Panzer General. The Air Defense units were of very limited value as they were unable to attack.

Whilst I am unsure if there is any documented historical precedent for doing as you say, I suppose in desperate situations it might well have happened.
On that basis, is there a valid argument for making all AA units switchable?
I am not suggesting they should all be effective as AT weapons.

Balla.

[monkspider]

Wow, Sahariana can switch to infantry? I am trying that next time!

Great to see that the legendary Longsac has even made it to this historic discussion!

Rudankort does make a compelling case or the multi-nation core idea, even though I was initially against the idea. I think Kerensky's objection has validity but I don't think it is something that the majority of playerrs would do. I think that if it is an option, as Deducter has proposed, that can be disabled like weather, supply rules, etc I think it could be a good addition. Rudankort's specific point about making the game more original and not just being another game where you play as the Germans is what convinced me. I think the idea is at least worth trying.

Also, I was doing some research on the units Ballacraine was talking about, I must admit, I was not an expert on Italian vehicles, but I think they would make a great addition to the game. The Italian Semovente 105/25 is considered to be the finest armored unit that the Italians produced in the war, if it is not in the game, it would make a good addition for the later scenarios where the Axis are winning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_105/25

-Edit Here is a promising Italian unit that only existed in prototype form that would presumably have existed in a reality where the Axis were winning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_da_149/40

[Razz1]

When I played the campaign I did not disband Italian units.
Making it impossible to do is a good suggestion.
Try making them 10% cheaper and perhaps give all Italian units +1 in defense.

I keep the Italian core. When they get killed, that's when I replace with German units.
I have bought a couple of Italian planes and M/41's

M41's are not bad with Hereo and +1 defense.
I loved that unit as the AI would go after it with their tanks.

Sure it would get reduced to strength 4 and sometimes 2.
It was a great diversionary unit. With the +1 defense I would always get hits against tanks.
Then on my turn my armor was untouched and I could attack the Allied tanks and knock them out.
Later I got a +1 attack with the M/41
I played the whole campaign that way.

Another alternative is to only have hereo's with German Armor, Italian Infantry, Art, and planes.

So go ahead and use all German core but you won't get all the hero's you need.

[uran21]

There are several things that influence unit performance. Some of them are set by default some are added trough unit interaction in the game.

Performance set by default is unit statistics, traits and default strength. Performance set by added elements trough in game interaction is experience (quality),
overstrength based on experience stars and hero bonuses.

Obviously Italian units as they are can get increased performance by building their characters but when we speak abut unit balance we always speak about their default performance.

Changing Italian performance is easy, we just modify some of the above parameters and give control of it to the player.
We do not have problems with knowing how to buff Italians. Question is more philosophical, do we want to do it and why.

This question of Italian performance and its place in the players core is no different than any other question of variety so far.

Game mechanics that allow wide field of options will never self impose variety. Variety will be self disciplined decision of a player.

Separated core slots for Italians and Germans is a limitation to the player and it will not be liked by many if included.

Italian equal or better than the Germans. Which group of players this solution is satisfying actually!?

We have two fundamental questions here:

• limitation vs freedom

• variety vs clones

Our solution lies in option that satisfies majority of different players preferences.
What are your preferences?
Do you like that game imposes limitation to you as part of a challenge or not?
Do you like to use variety in your core and do you like this variety to be self imposed by the game or decision from you?

My personal preference is freedom combined with variety, but I use this freedom for setting personal limitations for bigger challenge.
I also do not mind having limitations set by game mechanics as long as they are optional game settings (no messing with the editor).

Solution I would like to see in this case is inspired by trying to satisfy historical specificness of this theatre with fun gameplay.
Background of it goes to the fact that Italians didn't had impressive equipment but they had poor leadership that somehow changed with arrival of Germans.

So to reflect this I would like to see an option to retrain parts of Italian army to receive better command and doctrinal training.
This training would be represented by "training points" and player would have 3 such points.
Every point would give combat bonus to all units in one specific class at players choice. One class can receive maximum of 2 points. So either one class receives 2 points and the other 1 or three classes receive one bonus each.

I like this solution for several reasons:

• It includes measurable increase of unit performance.

• It is interactive.

• It can be ignored by those who do not want to use it.

• It increases strategic element of the game with choices to make.

• It is authentic for this theatre.

[Razz1]

I like that idea, I now I have a chance to use the Italian M13/40, train and later upgrade to M14/41. Same with other units.

So If I go to the training depot, is the bonus only for that scenario? Or is it for the whole game?

How long does a unit have to stay at training?

One, two or three turns?

Starting with core Italian Artillery is fine. I keep it for the whole campaign and use elite replacements when I can. Sure there is a difference with the German Art, but by the time I buy it or it is available I already have a fine Italian artillery piece.
Others have stated there are a couple of Italian infantry units they like.
I have stated how to use the M13/40 and it's tactics which work for me.
And the Italian plane are not that bad.

So now we have the opportunity to train Italians.

I wonder how other like the idea?

[Ballacraine]

I like that idea, I now I have a chance to use the Italian M13/40, train and later upgrade to M14/41. Same with other units.

So If I go to the training depot, is the bonus only for that scenario? Or is it for the whole game?

How long does a unit have to stay at training?

One, two or three turns?

Starting with core Italian Artillery is fine. I keep it for the whole campaign and use elite replacements when I can. Sure there is a difference with the German Art, but by the time I buy it or it is available I already have a fine Italian artillery piece.
Others have stated there are a couple of Italian infantry units they like.
I have stated how to use the M13/40 and it's tactics which work for me.
And the Italian plane are not that bad.

So now we have the opportunity to train Italians.

I wonder how other like the idea?

Yes, that may be a viable option.
In effect you would be 'Germanising' Italian units.
I quite like that idea.

Balla.

[Ballacraine]

Also, I was doing some research on the units Ballacraine was talking about, I must admit, I was not an expert on Italian vehicles, but I think they would make a great addition to the game. The Italian Semovente 105/25 is considered to be the finest armored unit that the Italians produced in the war, if it is not in the game, it would make a good addition for the later scenarios where the Axis are winning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_105/25

-Edit Here is a promising Italian unit that only existed in prototype form that would presumably have existed in a reality where the Axis were winning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_da_149/40

Here is some more grist to the mill.

Also consider these:
IMAM Ro58
Caproni CA331B Raffica ( Twin engined Fighter/Bombers in the Me110 style )

Re2002 Ariete ( A fighter/bomber in the style of P47 Thunderbolt)

Fighters:

Fiat G55 Centauro, MC202 Folgore, RE2005 Sagittario ( perhaps these are already featured in later scenarios? )
(As an aside, surely the Fiat G.50 Freccia should be included in existing Italian fighters? )

Fiat G56 ( This was under development & in trials proved itself superior to to the Me109G & FW190A )
Caproni Vizzola F6 & F7
MC205V Veltro
MC205N Orione
SAI SS4 ( A canard type interceptor. A similar concept to the Kyushu Shinden & Curtiss XP-55 Ascender)
SAI403 Dardo (High performance fighter due to wooden construction)

Piaggio P119 Mid engined fighter / ground attack aircraft.
( A similar idea to the Airacobra. )

SM91 ( Similar idea to the P51 Lightning )
SM92 ( As above but with the cockpit in the left boom as opposed to a central nacelle. Lighter more streamlined & faster? )

Balla.

[Rudankort]

Italian equal or better than the Germans. Which group of players this solution is satisfying actually!?

I think, nobody suggested to really make the italians equal or better than the germans, but to make them viable in player's core. They could take some special niche, or be cheaper, or occupy less slots. Unfortunately, I don't think we can do any of this, and I explained why several posts above. Still, I think that in a game like this every nation must be as competitive as possible, within the bounds of historical realism of course. So, if there is anything we can do for italians, this must be done. Same is true for GB, US and USSR for example, especially when we get to campaigns from these nations' perspective.

Our solution lies in option that satisfies majority of different players preferences.
What are your preferences?
Do you like that game imposes limitation to you as part of a challenge or not?
Do you like to use variety in your core and do you like this variety to be self imposed by the game or decision from you?
My personal preference is freedom combined with variety, but I use this freedom for setting personal limitations for bigger challenge.
I also do not mind having limitations set by game mechanics as long as they are optional game settings (no messing with the editor).

I think, the limitations we discuss above have nothing to do with challenge per se. It is always possible to tweak difficulty the way we want, and personally I believe that we don't need any increase in difficulty in AK, compared to the previous campaigns we've released. On the contrary, we might want to make it easier (on the default difficulty anyway), because it will be available as a standalone game.

The real goal of changing this aspect of the game is more variety, and consequently more fun.

Now, about self imposed limitations: I daresay that the vast majority of players never use them, and we cannot rely on them in game design. It is we who must decide which way is better (i. e. more interesting and fun), we cannot hope that the players will do this job for us.

Making per-nation core slots an option is always possible, but still we must decide how this option must be set by default, because this is how most people will play. It is still our responsibility to decide which way is better.

Solution I would like to see in this case is inspired by trying to satisfy historical specificness of this theatre with fun gameplay.
Background of it goes to the fact that Italians didn't had impressive equipment but they had poor leadership that somehow changed with arrival of Germans.

So to reflect this I would like to see an option to retrain parts of Italian army to receive better command and doctrinal training.
<skip>

This is an interesting suggestion, and a new direction for thinking in this thread. On the first glance, I can tell this: I like the idea in general, but I don't like the proposed implementation. It is not very intuitive and will require some rather major changes in the game. Instead, we could consider, for example, adding a special "Rommel H.Q." unit which would increase the performance of any units next to it, or within a certain radius. This would allow the player to give the italians the required punch, or try to compensate their shortcomings by making the german part of the core even stronger. So, this would also give us some choice.

The drawback, compared to the original suggestion, is of course the lack of strategic depth and potential improvement of replayability which results from it. On the other hand, making strategic decisions like this requires some knowledge of what awaits ahead, and such knowledge can only be obtained from experience, i. e. playing the campaign several times. If you don't have this knowledge, it is too easy to make a mistake. And this mistake, if discovered half-way through the campaign, could cause the player to restart it, which is not much fun. So, what I suggest is probably more democratic and newbie-friendly.

[uran21]

I think, nobody suggested to really make the italians equal or better than the germans, but to make them viable in player's core.

Nobody suggested this but it was a rhetorical question dealing with the far extreme. Any improvement to the unit performance will not satisfy group of players that play with philosophy "best available" simply because Italians will not be in that particular group of units so dealing with playing style of such group and looking how to satisfy them with Italians is not worth it but we need to leave them an option to play their style with all German core.

For those who would enjoy playing with Italians we need to make clear as a whole they are lesser equipment but they can have some bright spots.
For example that Sahariana recon unit that has no counterpart in German army, also there are some units already included in the game but they are suggested to be included.
The fact we received little and in case of some units zero feedback on existing Italian units is also valuable information. People do not experiment with them.
Difficulty issues we had in previous beta as well the fact no series concept existed did help to create such conditions but I wonder how many players will approach to the Italians from the perspective of prejudice.

Some Italian classes are usable in play more than others and I like this non-linearity in it and in magical triangle between Germany-Italy-Britain Italians should have their position in comparison to British to make game playable with it. But most comparisons will be drawn by comparing them with Germans. It is that variety issue which also exists for German core where lesser equipment is neglected.

The most easier option so far I see is to include core limitation while making this an option in settings and to look at stats a little bit but period between 1943-44 is very critical for upgrades and continuation of unit heroes/awards etc. We can include German equipment in Italian colours simply to make heroes survive later stages.

[Razz1]

If you are going to explore the General option:

How about the Italian class infantry -6 cost, plane and tank class -10 and then with General give them a +1 defense bonus.

For Germans: only a +1 movement bonus if near General Rommel

Now the incentive is better for to keep an Italian core as it is less expensive and with Rommel they can hold the line while the General transfers fuel to the German core units to move a little bit better.

[uran21]

We already have Rommel in game. You are all Rommel! lol

[Zhivago]

I think, nobody suggested to really make the italians equal or better than the germans, but to make them viable in player's core.

Nobody suggested this but it was a rhetorical question dealing with the far extreme. Any improvement to the unit performance will not satisfy group of players that play with philosophy "best available" simply because Italians will not be in that particular group of units so dealing with playing style of such group and looking how to satisfy them with Italians is not worth it but we need to leave them an option to play their style with all German core.

For those who would enjoy playing with Italians we need to make clear as a whole they are lesser equipment but they can have some bright spots.
For example that Sahariana recon unit that has no counterpart in German army, also there are some units already included in the game but they are suggested to be included.
The fact we received little and in case of some units zero feedback on existing Italian units is also valuable information. People do not experiment with them.
Difficulty issues we had in previous beta as well the fact no series concept existed did help to create such conditions but I wonder how many players will approach to the Italians from the perspective of prejudice.

Some Italian classes are usable in play more than others and I like this non-linearity in it and in magical triangle between Germany-Italy-Britain Italians should have their position in comparison to British to make game playable with it. But most comparisons will be drawn by comparing them with Germans. It is that variety issue which also exists for German core where lesser equipment is neglected.

The most easier option so far I see is to include core limitation while making this an option in settings and to look at stats a little bit but period between 1943-44 is very critical for upgrades and continuation of unit heroes/awards etc. We can include German equipment in Italian colours simply to make heroes survive later stages.

This is not a hard problem. Just make the Italian equipment CHEAPER (like 50% cheaper) than comparable German units. I think this is the only way many players (including myself) could justify buying an Italian unit over a German one as part of the overall core.

[Chris10]

adding a special "Rommel H.Q." unit which would increase the performance of any units next to it, or within a certain radius. This would allow the player to give the italians the required punch, or try to compensate their shortcomings by making the german part of the core even stronger. So, this would also give us some choice.

Adding generally HQ units for all sides would greatly improove strategic depth of the game..just thinking of bigger scnearios and campaigns..not only AK..
while at it it should be possible to disable or at least influence after how much turns after taking a city deployment of reinforcements would be possible..why must this be hardcoded ? It feels unnatural to deploy new units right on the front, this always disturbed me since PG but deploying them around a HQ would be awesome and very plausible...useless to say there is an option in the editor needed to specify max amount of HQ units per side..and what traits-bonuses shoud an HQ grant to units in its influence area and how many hexes should the influence be ?
- half fuel usage while draining own fuel reserves ? -this awesome for armored spearheads on bigger maps
- radar for better air cover ?
- 1+ defense, +1 close defense or +1 ini ?
...another entry in the gamerules pzdat should be added to change area of HQ influence for smaller/bigger maps

Having all sides HQs would give some objectives actually real meaning as HQs could be tied to prestige per turn and the enemys main base would be a bit harder to take out with an HQ behind giving bonuses to stats...well..a whole new world to discover...isnt it to late at this stage ?

Still..this doesnt solve the core problem..I think you yourself have said it..Its up to a developer to take some decisions as players never restrict themself..people instinctively exploit machanics and then complain about of lack of challenge or historical inconsistency...so a dynamical changing nation core slot number is a basic mechanic decision which will guarantee some unit diversity...people who wanna get rid of the restriction will and can mod this away to play with an all TigerII core...

[uran21]

HQ unit can add much more like concept of effectiveness, moral, supply lines.. very useful for strategic gaming and epic maps and I hope some of the sequels will include importance of simple logistics and true meaning of manoeuvre warfare even if it is only an option..

[deducter]

If we are talking about buffing the Italians, here are some quick suggestions:

Italian infantry strength 10 to 15, cost 70 to 80.
Italian tanks like the M11/39, M13/40, M14/41 can have strength 12 or 13. OR massive cost reduction. Increase fuel from 50 to 70.

Add 88 gun for the Italians, with switch mode.

Italian fighters should get a cost reduction.

Breda Ba.65 fuel 34 to 54.
Piaggio P.108 is a decent unit, maybe slight cost reduction (~10%), note the high naval attack on this unit.

[billmv44]

Excellent discussion. I find myself tending to agree with Kerensky on most points (though I like the training option recently mentioned). Whatever solution is adopted, I hope it will maintain the freedom of the play to choose how he will play. For those who want to play with an historical core, they can. For those who do not, they can too. Perhaps a popup message telling the player that if disbands any more Italian units, his core force will be historically unbalanced. "No Knight's Cross for you Herr General!" Or some other minor consequence for exceeding the historical ratio of German forces.

I see maintaining player freedom as important in making the game appealing to as many players as possible. If the game doesn't sell well, we won't get all the new content we want!

[deducter]

Intelligent discussion for video games is rare, and there are a lot of good, thought-provoking posts here. Continuing in playing the unpopular Devil's Advocate role here and (attracting much flaming), I personally would have no problem in forcing "bad" units on the player. It's up to them to figure out how to use those. If they want to throw them away like fodder, fine, so what? Perhaps, instead of defaulting to that attitude, they can figure out how best to employ those units. If you were assigned like Rommel to lead the Afrika Korps, and you took one look at those Italians and said "Bah, you are all worthless, go back to Italy, I don't want anyone of you" then disbanded all of his Italians, can you imagine how that would've worked out? But I realize that forcing bad units on players is unpopular and I would not want this implemented either.

The difficulty levels don't really mean much for a skilled player like myself. If I can beat colonel with 2 Italian:1 German, I can beat Rommel with that same ratio. It would be more interesting, if on Rommel, I had so little prestige that I was forced to use the Italians. And this is true at the first few scenarios. But once you win a few battles, there's no longer any point to keeping the Italians around. This is because the best equipment isn't just technically superior, they also save prestige (because they take less damage, reducing the price of reinforcements, or worse yet, losing your entire unit and be forced to replace it). If, like produit, you can rampage around Suez with 9 Panzer IVG on FM, then he can still rampage around Suez, perhaps with only 7 Panzer IVG on Rommel. So the best equipment in SP is superior in every single possible way, including cost. What's the point in even having all the other equipment around? I consider something like this a game design flaw, but that's my opinion.

Still..this doesnt solve the core problem..I think you yourself have said it..Its up to a developer to take some decisions as players never restrict themself..people instinctively exploit machanics and then complain about of lack of challenge or historical inconsistency...so a dynamical changing nation core slot number is a basic mechanic decision which will guarantee some unit diversity...people who wanna get rid of the restriction will and can mod this away to play with an all TigerII core...

Here's the thing, are such strategies "exploits" or "skill?" That's really the question isn't it? When you take away the "exploit," some players feel like you're punishing them for being skilled. But skill is this subjective term outside of anything than MP. It seems I go around bragging about how great I am, fine. But I try to help others. I try to explain these strategies and tactics and game mechanics so that everyone who wants to try can be as good, if not better than me. Because I believe this is foremost a strategy game, where gameplay skill matters. Rusikcanuk, PGTomli, Neccromancer, Kerensky, they are better than me. I'd be happy to have a discussion of strategy of MP like Hylan Valley, where I show you what I do and the tricks I pull. I'd be happy to have a discussion of SP strategy too... except there isn't any. Buy the best equipment, roll forward, win. Applies to all difficulty sub-Manstein, where you still have to buy the best equipment, but it takes a lot of tactical skill to win. A more interesting discussion might be

Player A: "I see you are using all German units at El Alamein, but isn't your Italian core languishing? I think if you cut back a bit on the Germans and use more cheap Italian units, it might work better?"

Player B: "I prefer the strength of the powerful, elite German formations, so they can punch a hole in the British defenses and quickly go to all objectives, leaving my Italians as a rearguard"

Player A: "I use the Italians to screen my forces and as somewhat disposable units, so as to protect the strength of my German units, which cost a lot to reinforce"

And so on. That's interesting. Right now, it's unequivocal that the Italians are worthless outside of the Bersaglieri, artillery, maybe the strategic bomber, and that saharan recon unit.

Perhaps my problem is that I play enough MP to realize how well the game is balanced in that arena. There's a lot of nuance and choice, but massing up only best equipment is an automatic path to fail, just as buying only the worse equipment would be. If I see a player with 4 Me 262 on turn 3 of Hylan Valley, I know I've already won. If I see 4 IS-2 on Frozen North, I know I've already won. If I see tons of Elefants but nothing else on Steamrollers, I've already won. If I see a player using tanks, infantry, artillery intelligently, as a well-balanced force, then I know I've met a skilled player. And I've lost my share of battles to such players. Luck is irrelevant for MP, despite many posts to the contrary. If the developers' intention was that skill didn't matter, then MP should play out exactly like SP. I know that MP and SP are supposed to be different, as the developers have said many times, but why should it be that there's so much strategy and choice in core composition for MP, but none for SP?

For SP, I'm not hearing a lot of interesting, high level discussions where a lot of different core compositions is viable though, outside of discussion for the stock campaign. For the DLCs, it's just mass up the best tanks, fighters, and bombers, and win. I don't think anyone can fail to realize that getting 15 Tiger IIs will win you scenarios easily. Sure, there are players who use mostly Panthers in 1945 and won all DV, but that core is unequivocally weaker than a similar core with mostly Tiger IIs. Wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss which is better, a Panther-based armor corps or a King Tiger-based armor corps? In MP, this matters immensely! In SP, there's no discussion, no reason besides "crippling yourself" to use sub-optimal equipment. That's no longer strategy.

On a last note, I want to emphasize is that it's best to keep modding options open. Having a parameter to specify "national core slots" in the scenario editor could be a very useful feature.

[Tarrak]

If we are talking about buffing the Italians, here are some quick suggestions:

Italian infantry strength 10 to 15, cost 70 to 80.
Italian tanks like the M11/39, M13/40, M14/41 can have strength 12 or 13. OR massive cost reduction. Increase fuel from 50 to 70.

I am afraid the "zerg" approach does not really fit the Italian well at all. They wasn't exactly famous for mass attacks ... on the other hand they wasn't really famous for attacks at all but ... For the tanks a reduction in costs would be fine imho. With the reduced amount of Matilda IIs in Beta 2 even the Italian tanks can operate quite fine vs the weaker British tanks. For the infantry ... well if it stays crap it stays crap. The Bersaglieri are more then fine as they are so one could just upgrade the regular Italian infantry to them.

Piaggio P.108 is a decent unit, maybe slight cost reduction (~10%), note the high naval attack on this unit.

Tbh i don't think it need a price reduction at all. The Piaggio is a very decent bomber. I was considering getting it or the Do 217E and it was VERY close. The Do won mostly because it carry a lot more ammo but the Piaggio was really just a tiny bit behind and it certainly outclassed the other German level bomber.

[Rudankort]

Guys, please try to avoid any personal attacks on this forum. I deleted and edited some of the posts above. Thanks for understanding.