Panzer Corps Grand Finale: a DLC and an update!

[deducter]

The problem may also be with the basic combat predictor, which is often not accurate. But if you use the detailed combat predictor (Crtl + Click) before a battle, you can see a lot more information, and this prediction is usually much more accurate.

We usually remember the freak results, especially the freak results with bad outcomes, but we don't think about the hundreds of routine results that occur for every freak outcome.

Be a bit careful of playing with results that are too predictable. At first it may seem refreshing, with every battle going your way. But for some players, that becomes problem after a while, when literally every battle goes your way. Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode.

I personally think diced chess is too predictable, but that might just be that I am so used to the default RNG generator. Perhaps something in between the default mode and diced chess might be best.

And PzC RNG isn't even that bad, compared to say, poker. New players rage about how bad their luck is, and how they get sucked out every time. Even a very good player can go into months-long cooler streaks. But at the end of the day, the good players learn to tolerate variance and deal with it.

I think the combat model is surprisingly sophisticated and realistic for how simple it is, but I do agree that are some flaws. For example, infantry taking off more than 1 str point of a tank, especially of a heavy tank, in clear terrain is very strange to me. I think a good way of addressing this is to open up the modding of combat rules. A few extra rules could help mitigate the illogical outcomes.

[KeldorKatarn]

I need to test the new mode first but generally I agree with deducter. Having been a gamedev myself I remember dozens of talks by designers and other people about how to "adjust" random numbers to player expectations. The result was usually really bad for the game so I'm really not a fan of it. And certain randomization should be the case. As an also former soldier and military history fan like probably most here I condider the concept of too predictable combat results to be silly. Like deducter said, the variance is what challenges a good player It is easy to work with predictable results, it is harder to make sure you can deal with unpredictable results. And in real life military leaders always give out orders for the unexpected and desastrous results because you simply need to be in a position to deal with it when things don't go as planned. And that happens all the time.

I also agree with deducter on possibly making the combat simulator rules moddable. That way modders with lots of playing experience can optimize things and fix problems that they have become aware of. Such community driven content usually ends up improving an already great concept and give it the final finishing touches that only people with months of playing experience can give.

I don't think any new mode should become default but I say that without having tested it yet. All I know so far is that I've never been in any trouble in this game, playing on field marshall, without having made a clear mistake. Yes I've lost units where I expected to be relatively save and got a very bad result, but that's just lessons to be learned. I learned to plan ahead, to make sure I'm fine even if something bad happens and that's how I become a better and better player, just from experience that I need to make sure even very bad results cannot harm me too much. That also has the advantage that when things end up going your way after all you are in an even better position to kick ass.

So I dunno, I'm sceptical about any changes to the combat model. I like a certain randomness involved. I've seen unlikely results happen, but so far I've never seen one that was impossible from a military point of view. Yes heavy tank losses on open terrain are very unlikely, but far from impossible. One lucky shot hitting a tank's tracks, making it spin so its soft armor faces a bad direction... blow that one up and confusion breaks out maybe allowing infantry to get another hit in. It's not likely and still suicide fo the infantry to try, but stranger things have happened in war. And any commander who thinks he's always safe by doing it by the book usually won't ever win any great victories.

[Rudankort]

The problem may also be with the basic combat predictor, which is often not accurate. But if you use the detailed combat predictor (Crtl + Click) before a battle, you can see a lot more information, and this prediction is usually much more accurate.

Not so long ago I have already made a test: changed the code so that it models the combat 10000 times, takes the most frequent outcome and compares this with what game's predictor produces. This test was repeated for 10 different combats. In 9 of them predictor correctly guessed the most probable result, in the remaining combat it was wrong by 1 (predicted 1-0 instead of 0-0 or something to that effect). This makes me believe that predictor is actually good enough. It is just hard to show all possible spectrum of outcomes in just two numbers. Some combats have a rather narrow distribution of probable outcomes, but in some other combats distribution can be quite crazy.

Oh, and btw: simple and detailed predictors always give the same numbers for kills. This is because "detailed prediction" simply shows the log of predictor's operation. It is not a separate different algorithm.

[KeldorKatarn]

I think the predictor is just fine.

[mautschi]

The best solution - in my opinion - would be the implementation of a slide control, similar to the handycap control.

At position 0 the outcomes are the same as in v 1.11
At position 1 the outcomes are like using "dice chess"
At position 2 the outcomes are like using "dice"




For the sake of interest and comparison with the opportunities, I started a survey at DMP a few days ago.

http://www.designmodproject.de/forum/vi ... 80&t=29970

So far, the result is 18:6 votes for a change of the system as it is used in v 1.11.

[Rudankort]

For the sake of interest and comparison with the opportunities, I started a survey at DMP a few days ago.

http://www.designmodproject.de/forum/vi ... 80&t=29970

So far, the result is 18:6 votes for a change of the system as it is used in v 1.11.

Thx for the link. I could not understand though even with Google translator what the poll means. Does it mean:
18 people want dice chess mode as the default
6 people want to leave the game as it is now (in 1.13)
?

[mautschi]

6 people want to leave the game as it is now (in 1.13)

That's correct.


18 people think the system should be changed towards much less random outcomes - something like dice chess, yes.

[Wildthing]

Thank you mautschi for your commitment in this point. Your suggestion to add the dice chess - mode as an option is a wonderfull idea. The word "cheat" includes the bitter taste of sham, but in this case for me is pressing STRG+ALT+SHIFT+C only an annoying way to use the new feature.
If its possible to add a slide control with your 3 options into the UI, all players will find their favored setting. If somebody wants to change his setting while playing, he can use the "cheat" - box if needed.

For me its a clear 1+
Greets, Wildthing

[Magic1111]

If its possible to add a slide control with your 3 options into the UI, all players will find their favored setting. If somebody wants to change his setting while playing, he can use the "cheat" - box if needed.
For me its a clear 1+
Greets, Wildthing

2nd this absolutely!

[ThvN]

I could not understand though even with Google translator what the poll means. Does it mean:
18 people want dice chess mode as the default
6 people want to leave the game as it is now (in 1.13)
?

I understand a fair bit of German, so I just made a translation of the first post in the DMP thread, followed by a translation of the poll. Note that I'm not a member there. My comments and clarifications are in brackets [ ], I put some alternative translations here and there, so I don't accidently misquote the original poster; mautschi can fill in the details himself, or let me know if he disagrees with my translation.

The post on DMP:

Wen hat es nicht schon mal gestört, wenn Einheiten ohne nachvollziehbare Gründe stark dezimiert wurden, weil wieder einmal die Würfelergebnisse in die Hose gingen ?

Um dieses Problem zu umgehen, wurde mit Version 1.13 der cheat "dice chess" eingeführt, der solche Abweichungen im Kampfergebnis auf +/- 20% begrenzt.
Wenn euch die momentanen Würfelergebnisse stören, bitte hier:

Einen Post absetzen ! Die Umfrage ist nur interessehalber ! die Idee der Begrenzung von Würfelergebnissen standardmäßig ins Spiel zu bringen ! Ich hoffe auf rege Unterstützung !

Who has never been bothered, when units were decimated without any understandable reason, because the dice roll results were messed up [sic: went to pants] again?

To avoid this problem, version 1.13 introduced the ‘dice chess’ cheat, which limits the deviation in combat results to +/- 20%.

When you are bothered by the current dice roll results, please post here! [slitherine forum thread]

The poll [sic:survey] is just out of interest [as in curiosity]! The goal [can also mean: idea/wish] is that the limited deviation in dice roll results could be put in the game as standard. I hope too see much support! [I'm not 100% sure if it means that it could be made a standard option, or that it should be the default setting, the first post in DMP-forum suggests it should be, but please read my peronal note below]

Poll:

Findet ihr die Zufallsergebnisse passend ?
Ja, es ist realistisch 6
Nein, zu viel Abweichung 18

Do you think de random results are suitable [can also mean: fitting/proper]?
Yes, it’s realistic (6 votes)
No, too much deviation (18 votes)

[So, the way I understand it it that the poll is about the deviation in the current system, that is not entirely clear from the way the question is formulated, but the post leaves little doubt about this. So yes, the poll has 18 votes to support putting in 'dice chess' as the default.]

On a personal note, my experience with regards to this type of voluntary poll (about changing something which exists already) is that the most people who respond to those polls are the people who want to see the change, and the people who are satisfied with the current situation tend not to respond with equal enthusiasm. This is not to put down the poll, but the binary nature of the answers does not relate to the far more moderate responses in the DMP thread, where people express their dissatisfaction with the possible extreme results of the current system but still appreciate some randomness. Even the original poll-poster, mautschi, stated in the DMP thread, for example, that he could 'live very well' with putting it in as option at the start of a campaign, with a checkbox, like weather/supply.

I hope this helps to understand the intention a bit better, because the poll by itself is not telling the whole story, I think.

[Rudankort]

Thanks Thomas. It is fine, I understand some limitations with these polls, but still it is an interesting result.

Perhaps an option for this, in advanced section with a notice in big letters "no newbies here" could work. The biggest problem with sliders like that one suggested above is, most players will never understand their meaning, and will be scared away by lots of confusing options. PzC is a simple game, and keeping it as such should be high on our priority list. How can player choose what kind of randomness he wants if he never played the game in the first place, and does not even understand the whole problem with randomness? That is the question.

[deducter]

Some combats have a rather narrow distribution of probable outcomes, but in some other combats distribution can be quite crazy.

I agree. The combat results that are most unpredictable are the cases of equal initiative, high attack, but low defense units attacking each other (examples: Me-262 vs Meteor, 3 star Sherman Firefly vs 2 star Panther). The unit that wins the initiative roll and scores a few extra kills in its initial dice rolls has a massive advantage.

The other case where the results are less reliable are low attack vs high defense units (example: infantry vs Elefant in clear terrain, Bf 109F vs Il-2M3). However, the variance is much lower than in the previous case. It is highly, highly unlikely that a conscript will knock off 7 str points of a Elefant in clear terrain.

In cases where a unit completely crushes another, say, a 15-str Panzer IV vs a conscript in clear terrain or a 15-str Panther vs a 10-str T-34, the combat predictor is very reliable.

I think making the distribution slightly more narrow for the first case is probably a good thing, but I don't think it is necessary for the other cases.

[deducter]

PzC is a simple game, and keeping it as such should be high on our priority list. How can player choose what kind of randomness he wants if he never played the game in the first place, and does not even understand the whole problem with randomness? That is the question.

I think having a tab for advanced options is an excellent idea. Right now, many advanced options already exist (modifying difficulty level, reform units, chess/diced chess), but the integration is awkward. Sometimes I can't remember which of these options I even have enabled. The lack of transparency can be very confusing.

An advanced option tab will not scare away new players as long as it is not presented to him. Take Civ4, a game that has sold millions of copies. When starting up a new game, you can choose "play now," select a few things (map type/size, difficulty), and jump right in.



However, if you want to customize your game, you can choose "custom game," and you are presented with a staggering number of options (the screenshot below doesn't even show half the options, or the options for map generation, or the options for the AI).



I don't think it is fair to say that the number of advanced options scared away players for Civ4, since the game sold very well. As long as the default setting is simple and hassle-free, it should not confuse new players. However, the advanced options should be accessible for those players who want to use them, as opposed to going through cumbersome methods like cheat codes and editing game files. It is also a good idea to explain clearly, preferably in the manual, what exactly any advanced options do. More options can greatly extend the longevity of PzC without sacrificing the "easy-to-learn" aspect of the game.

[dumbttt]

I was going to point to civ4 as an example as well. I actually prefer making "dice chess" as an option rather than the default, as I originally suggested. More option is always good, the point is, you don't have to tinker with the options unless you want to, there is no point for noobs to be apprehensive of options.

[Rudankort]

Yes, Civilization is a good example, although this game is really special - it seems to be the only complex mass-market TBS remaining.

[case23]

I think adding dice chess is a fine option, but I vastly prefer the current level of randomness. Yes, strange things happen and sometimes that's really, really(!) disappointing -- also sometimes really (really!) excellent -- but that's part of what keeps the scenarios interesting. In chess mode, the game would seem to me too much like a deterministic puzzle to be solved. Indeed, I wish there were more randomness in the AI's initial setup so that the first few moves weren't so formulaic.

Anyway, the option is a great idea for people that prefer it. But here's at least one person that appreciates the unpredictability as it is now.

- Case

[Nordlands]

HELP

Im not seeing any of th V1 or V2 in my games hence i cannot win decisive.
anyone else having this issue
hope to get some hints

[KeldorKatarn]

I think adding dice chess is a fine option, but I vastly prefer the current level of randomness. Yes, strange things happen and sometimes that's really, really(!) disappointing -- also sometimes really (really!) excellent -- but that's part of what keeps the scenarios interesting. In chess mode, the game would seem to me too much like a deterministic puzzle to be solved. Indeed, I wish there were more randomness in the AI's initial setup so that the first few moves weren't so formulaic.

Anyway, the option is a great idea for people that prefer it. But here's at least one person that appreciates the unpredictability as it is now.

- Case

Two people. And frankly.. that was a poll about with what, 20, 25 people? What kind of statistical significance does that have? Right.. none whatsoever.
As an option yeah, but a hard change? I'd need a lot more data of the playerbase to make a decision like that.

[Rudankort]

Most game mechanics in Panzer Corps are probably too established by now to change them. Adding an option is all we can do really.

[KeldorKatarn]

Agreed. And really if the rules where bad enough to require this kind of change, the complaints would have been louder. Yes it's a very cool option to have, but I've never seen any major reaction that could indicate that this ever was a major problem. So yeah, add the option and that's fine.