Slitherine

Rudankort wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 9:32 pm Great discussion, keep it going. Some very quick comments.

ptje63 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:05 pm I like the addition of random generated maps. It will guarantee a longer usage of the game. A good example of this is the fact that I still play The Grandest Fleet - thanks to its random generated maps option. Will you use similar parameters like TGF to create the map?

I enjoyed playing The Grandest Fleet long ago, but I don't remember any more what parameters it offered for random map generation. Can you remind me?

Parameters were chosen in 2 steps shown in these 2 printscreens:

Rudankort wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 9:32 pm Great discussion, keep it going. Some very quick comments.

Rood wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:47 am However I have a small request.
Could it be implemented that if there's only naval units that they cannot use their normal LoS range on grond hexes. As an example if there's a cruiser with 4 LoS adjecent to a coastal hex it can only see the adjecent coastal hexes but not further inland. Unless there's a friendly ground unit near by that does the actually spotting.
It annoyed me like hell that ships could bombard 3-5 hexes inland without there being any friendly ground untis. And yes the navy do have aerial recon planes but then those should be actual units that could be shot down.

I think it is a very reasonable request.

It is still likewise annoying that a 2 spotting recon hero can look farther away on land with hills etc, than a naval unit on a flat sea.

Many players' impression of recon is that they somehow fail at their essential function unless you expose them to huge risks they are not equipped to survive.

Remember the core reason for Panzer General:y games success - the unrealistic ability to create hero units that transcend the inherent replacability of any real soldier or unit. Recon units fail at this. That is the core of the lack of customer satisfaction here. Just saying this because as the difficulty you play at increases, this feature necessarily fades as games become more... gritty and real. But let's not lose focus: the reason recon needs to be reworked is that it is essentially impossible to create a five star recon unit in PC1. An implementation consistent with the overall approach to this kind of game would give them maybe 20% damage reduction per star, so that a five star recon would be safe (unless boxed in with no way to flee). Constantly replacing your recon might be realistic but it sure ain't fun.

Here's an illustration. I am not a beginning player (not an expert either) but I was genuinely amazed of how much better air recon worked (for its intended purpose) when I was given such a unit in US Corps. Finally a recon unit that could do the job with a minimum of fuss! I realized the whole game become more fun when I could focus on what these games does best, instead of agonizing over whether to use my recon or not, and how much. Despite being well acquainted with the game, I surprised myself in how much I appreciated not having to fiddle about with land recon anymore. (Just having one air unit meant keeping track of two lines of advance. This meant my land recon could be reassigned scouting missions on the flanks where they are much safer)

However, the question here should - of course - not be "why haven't we been given air recon units before" - the question should be "what's wrong with land recon" in the context of the game.

In the early war and on secondary theatres they're fine, but it remains decidedly unfun to see them become wastes of deployment slots and the weakest link of your chain as the enemy becomes stronger. In addition - something is wrong when a spotting hero can make a sturdier unit become a much better recon resource; it feels off somehow for armies to produce recon units when they should focus on air recon and/or combined units.

The point here isn't that we expect you to have answers. I don't have answers.

[/quote]

Well said! I too find recon rather useless, especially after the first two or so DLCs, unless they're on unofficial steroids using British armored cars (geeeez!). I agree with most of your points. I only used land recon really when it was provided with a hero unit and that gave it a total of +4 or 5 spotting. THAT made it useful! However, from the first time I played PC1, I have felt that the base spotting on recon units was too low to begin with. Even in PG2 they were 4. I also think they should not have a movement penalty if they do it in phases. (I can't remember if this was the case in PG2, however.) These two changes would help A LOT. Don't need to make them unrealistically more powerful/survivable, just much better at what they were intended to do.

Lastly, air recon!!! Biggest disappointment when it comes to omitted units. Again, I second everything that was said above.

Molve wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:59 am I do not think it is awesome at all.

Many players' impression of recon is that they somehow fail at their essential function unless you expose them to huge risks they are not equipped to survive.

Remember the core reason for Panzer General:y games success - the unrealistic ability to create hero units that transcend the inherent replacability of any real soldier or unit. Recon units fail at this. That is the core of the lack of customer satisfaction here. Just saying this because as the difficulty you play at increases, this feature necessarily fades as games become more... gritty and real. But let's not lose focus: the reason recon needs to be reworked is that it is essentially impossible to create a five star recon unit in PC1. An implementation consistent with the overall approach to this kind of game would give them maybe 20% damage reduction per star, so that a five star recon would be safe (unless boxed in with no way to flee). Constantly replacing your recon might be realistic but it sure ain't fun.

Here's an illustration. I am not a beginning player (not an expert either) but I was genuinely amazed of how much better air recon worked (for its intended purpose) when I was given such a unit in US Corps. Finally a recon unit that could do the job with a minimum of fuss! I realized the whole game become more fun when I could focus on what these games does best, instead of agonizing over whether to use my recon or not, and how much. Despite being well acquainted with the game, I surprised myself in how much I appreciated not having to fiddle about with land recon anymore. (Just having one air unit meant keeping track of two lines of advance. This meant my land recon could be reassigned scouting missions on the flanks where they are much safer)

However, the question here should - of course - not be "why haven't we been given air recon units before" - the question should be "what's wrong with land recon" in the context of the game.

In the early war and on secondary theatres they're fine, but it remains decidedly unfun to see them become wastes of deployment slots and the weakest link of your chain as the enemy becomes stronger. In addition - something is wrong when a spotting hero can make a sturdier unit become a much better recon resource; it feels off somehow for armies to produce recon units when they should focus on air recon and/or combined units.

The point here isn't that we expect you to have answers. I don't have answers.

(I know Rudankort have plans, but just as an example: what if recon were made into an abstract resource? Just point and click to reveal a patch of map would be faster and simpler for many players, and nothing much would be lost. If you click the "wrong" area, your capability to recon goes down to model losses without having you watch your precious units die. In fact such a simple implementation could well end up removing an impediment to their fun. Bringing up this example because that's essentially how my US air recon unit worked)

The point here is that as a representative for Slitherine (not actually sure of your role, so please accept my apologies if I'm wrong here) - please listen to your gamers, and consider placing their opinion above your own. In no way does this mean I am invalidating your experience. But I am genuinely unsure what you hope to accomplish by defending current recon implementation. The solution isn't to convince us all to give PC1 recon another chance. Most players have neither the skill nor the inclination. I want you to consider that it is probably for the best to drop the way recon works in PC1 and instead start fresh for PC2, focusing on how to implement "recon" as a fun and valuable resource for the majority of players with a minimum of micromanaging.

Thank you

Well you are free to disagree, but it doesn't make you any more correct than it makes me incorrect. It's just a difference of opinion. But I will not malign recon unit types when there is a clear and useful purpose to them, that I readily use and make good use of, though perhaps it's not the one you personally care for, subscribe to, want, or desire.

I fail to see why recon, or anyone else, should have guaranteed 5 star growth potential. In fact that entire argument is absurd. Not everyone else has easy access to 5 star experience levels... in fact I would argue only 2... maybe 3 classes have a decent chance of getting to that experience level and maintaining it without breaking your prestige bank. Tanks, because of their durability and ability to destroy high value enemy units. Artillery, because of their ability to not sustain experience draining damage while performing their duties. And tactical bombers, who like artillery are generally not sustaining experience draining losses while performing their duties. Every other class has a much harder road to 5 star status, especially infantry. Those poor ground pounders... If anything, I'm pretty sure it's easier to get a 5 star recon unit than a 5 star infantry unit, especially for higher quality, combat orientated recons like the Puma. So I'm not sure what your argument is based on, but it's not at all reflective of the state of the game.

In fact that would do more harm than good because if everyone has a clear road to 5 star status... well then that elite status becomes meaningless. An entire CORE of 5 star units, does anyone ever have that? No way, I'm pretty sure even on easy difficulty there aren't enough enemies to farm experience off of to sustain that roster. 5 star units, even the 3 classes I mentioned that have the easiest access to that status, must always be carefully cultivated. Baby them with all of the best elite replacements, while giving normal replacement elsewhere to sustain the prestige drain. Give them choice battles to farm experience on, such as attacking heavily suppressed targets. Keeping them out of obvious danger positions, such as ending their turn way out in front of your main army and exposed during the enemy turn. I'm pretty sure any unit can get to 5 stars if you treat them right. Maybe recons have a harder road than tanks, but as stated it's not like infantry or AT have an easier time of it. Even strat bombers got that experience buff so they aren't kill based to reach the highest levels of experience.

I disagree that recon are slot wastes and weakest links. They're the vanguards of your army, but they are also excellent finisher units. With units having only 1 action per turn, it's really handy to have a fast unit available to swoop in and finish off a 2 strength crippled enemy infantry or tank or artillery unit rather than expend a precious 5 Star 15 Panther who is needed to push more full strength Soviet units from their 13 3 star state into that 2 strength crippled point. I only have precious few of those super Elite panthers at my disposal, and I always have to move them carefully so they aren't exposed at end turn, but sending a recon into a dangerous position to finish off something I don't want the AI to refit? Absolutely.

As for flat damage reduction... I'm afraid that would never work. The implications are prime for abusive behavior and roadblock style tactics. I'm just imagining people's reaction when high experience recon cars start planting themselves in critical choke points and start blocking tanks that should be sweeping them aside without a second thought.




How would you even dislodge such an obstacle? What reaction would players have when they send their moderate experience Panthers against a super elite Greyhound sitting on a bridge and watch in bewilderment as it manages to stand it's ground.

No, let's see what they're actually cooking up with recon units in Panzer Corps II and then judge that. Maybe recon aren't as good as they could be in Panzer Corps, but elevating them way beyond their technical capabilities is no good answer. I don't flood my CORE with recon, but I also don't abandon them. They have their place, same as I only have a very few towed 88s. They're not going to be the bulk of my CORE, but they serve a really important role that they fit into better than anyone else so they earn their slots. I think it's enough that recon has such a role (vanguard), but I'm not completely adverse to making them a little bit better too.

Kerensky wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:21 pmI disagree that recon are slot wastes and weakest links. They're the vanguards of your army, but they are also excellent finisher units. With units having only 1 action per turn, it's really handy to have a fast unit available to swoop in and finish off a 2 strength crippled enemy infantry or tank or artillery unit rather than expend a precious 5 Star 15 Panther who is needed to push more full strength Soviet units from their 13 3 star state into that 2 strength crippled point. I only have precious few of those super Elite panthers at my disposal, and I always have to move them carefully so they aren't exposed at end turn, but sending a recon into a dangerous position to finish off something I don't want the AI to refit? Absolutely.

"You can finish off weak units" is something you could say about any unit, viable or not. In truth there is nothing special about recon that allows them to finish weak units. Flamm tanks are good for finishing weak units- their high RoF is a special ability that makes them good at that. Recon's got nothing that makes them any better than anything else at finishing weak units. Being able to finish weak units doesn't excuse being bad at its core purpose, which is recon. Seriously, they're bad at it. A tank with +1 vision is a better recon unit than recon.

proline wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:16 pm "You can finish off weak units" is something you could say about any unit, viable or not. In truth there is nothing special about recon that allows them to finish weak units. Flamm tanks are good for finishing weak units- their high RoF is a special ability that makes them good at that. Recon's got nothing that makes them any better than anything else at finishing weak units. Being able to finish weak units doesn't excuse being bad at its core purpose, which is recon. Seriously, they're bad at it. A tank with +1 vision is a better recon unit than recon.

The point of recon finishers seem pretty clear. They have high speed, the fastest ground movers in the game, and come at a low cost, far lower than any tank, and that low cost makes them more attractive to use when making high risk moves that you wouldn't want to leave tanks in. There's no need to 'excuse from core purpose' (I'm not even sure what that means, because when recon are used as advance scouts and vanguards, surely that is the core purpose of a reconnaissance unit), I said this was an additional benefit. They're enablers to make high risk moves without risking otherwise irreplaceable assets.

I think the main point people seem to be ignoring is that recons in pzc2 will no longer need to compete with tanks/arty for slots because they will cost less "deployment resource" whatever that turns out to be called. So if u can field 2 or maybe 3 recons for 1 tank, then they become pretty good, right?

13obo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:54 am I think the main point people seem to be ignoring is that recons in pzc2 will no longer need to compete with tanks/arty for slots because they will cost less "deployment resource" whatever that turns out to be called. So if u can field 2 or maybe 3 recons for 1 tank, then they become pretty good, right?

Not as long as any tank or AT can one-shot them. Not as long as they cost as much as far superior units (a flamm is waaaay better than 1.5 recon cars. A flamm will often finish the GC with 1,000+ kills while a recon that survives at all would be lucky to have a couple hundred). Not as long as they have to stay behind your front lines to stay live. Not as long as the only way to use them in any semblance of recon is to move them 4 steps forward, 3 steps back, which doesn't reveal any more of the map then just moving one of your spotting hero tanks up a couple hexes. Keep in mind you can move heroes around, so getting a spotting hero for a tank should be pretty easy.

Yes, the deployment slots hurt, but recon are still really screwed up. Look at air recon to see recon done right.

Casual player here.

What's the problem with having a unit or a class that you personally find useless? Just don't use it!!!
If someone else finds it usefull, that someone else will use it...
I never use bridge engineers but I'm not bothered that they are available for whomever wants to use them.

It all comes down to choice. Give me options and let me choose. I don't want to be forced to play in the way that somebody else decided is proper.

That being said here go a few suggestions:
1 - spotting done by regulars units will show only type of unit and, maybe, size.
2 - same with air recon, but with a bigger spotting radius.
3 - ground recon units will spot everything (class, type, size, fuel, ammo, stars, heroes...).

hs1611 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:08 amWhat's the problem with having a unit or a class that you personally find useless? Just don't use it!!!
If someone else finds it usefull, that someone else will use it...
I never use bridge engineers but I'm not bothered that they are available for whomever wants to use them.

Because there's a difference between 'useless' and 'doesn't fit everyone's style'. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have bridging engineers or paratroopers, even though you can win fine without either. Those who do use them are not penalized for doing so. The trouble with recon is that anyone who uses it would be better off if they didn't. I.e. even if you take the advice here and find some clever niche for it like finishing off weak units or whatever, if you replay the scenario and just deploy another tank you will do better. I guarantee it*. Recon, as they stand today, undermine the play style of anyone, not just some of us. That's why they should be close to the top of the list of things to fix. The game is simply more fun the more viable units there are, so why not make recon viable?

*Ok fine. You might do better with recon in certain very early game scenarios. And Saharianna / LRDG are actually decent, if only because they have a mode that's not recon.

proline wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:54 am Because there's a difference between 'useless' and 'doesn't fit everyone's style'. (...) Recon, as they stand today, undermine the play style of anyone, not just some of us.

See, that's just not true. Just because RECON doesn't fit, or undermines, your style, that doesn't mean that it doesn't fit anyone's style or that it undermines everyone's style.
Some people have clearly found a way to use them, and are happy with it. I'm not one of them.
Just like some people like to limit themselves to an historical CORE, limiting the number of TIGERs, or whatever. I'm not one of them either.
And that's the beauty of this game. It fits almost everyone's preferences.
Should I lobby to make it impossible to win by using only the type of CORE, or the tactics, I prefer?
Should I lobby to make the SOFT CAP mandatory, or to remove it completely?
NO, leave the choice to the player, that is to say to me and to you and to everyone else.

proline wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:54 am The trouble with recon is that anyone who uses it would be better off if they didn't. I.e. even if you take the advice here and find some clever niche for it like finishing off weak units or whatever, if you replay the scenario and just deploy another tank you will do better. I guarantee it*.

No, everyone would not be better off if they don't use RECON. I am NOT better off if I finish the scenario quicker, or if I kill more enemy units losing less of my own units. I AM better off if I enjoy playing more. If someone enjoys the challenge of making RECON work than they are better off with RECON. Personally I don't use (ground) RECON much, but I like the challenge of using towed AT, even though gamewise TANKS are almost always better. I don't care. I want my towed AT.
Don't take this personally but your guarantee is worthless to me, just like mine is, or should be, worthless to you.
From what I've seen of your posts we play at completely different levels, so what gives you enjoyment in this game is not necessarily what I enjoy.
The problem with this forums is that, normally, only the hardcore players are active in giving opinions, so the developers might assume that their's are the only opinions, or even the majority's opinion, Well, they are not. Most players are like me, casual players who simply like to play every once in a while without worrying too much about the most efficient way to win the game.
If you can make the game fit both types of players why not do it? If you make it too easy or too permissive hardcore players will not buy it, if you make it too hard or too constrictive casual players will not buy it.
PzC is both. Use the same formula for PzC 2.

proline wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:54 am That's why they should be close to the top of the list of things to fix. The game is simply more fun the more viable units there are, so why not make recon viable?

Even with all I said above I still agree with this. Of course there is always room for improvement.
If you can make RECON viable, by all means do. Just don't make them, or anything else, mandatory or indispensable.

By the way, any thoughts on my previous suggestions?

proline wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:06 am

13obo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:54 am I think the main point people seem to be ignoring is that recons in pzc2 will no longer need to compete with tanks/arty for slots because they will cost less "deployment resource" whatever that turns out to be called. So if u can field 2 or maybe 3 recons for 1 tank, then they become pretty good, right?

Not as long as any tank or AT can one-shot them. Not as long as they cost as much as far superior units (a flamm is waaaay better than 1.5 recon cars...

Recons have other uses apart from attacking. Do you compare AA or artillery in one on one fights with tanks too?

On your point about their survivability, it was already mentioned you'll be able to overstrengthen them from day 1 so definitely won't be one-shottable. That is unless enemy has a lot higher strength than your unit and you've exposed it badly in the open without AT support, which you should also consider now.

Molve wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:29 pm You seem to have answers for everything Rudankort.

Here's one question I bet you will find impossible to answer:

Why are there two threads named "Dev Diary #6"?

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=88512
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 58&t=88511
Both start with screenshots of the various terrain generators, but one contains only four posts and the other one is this one. The other one lives in the PC2 forum together with the other dev diaries; this one is from Announcements.

You are quite right: i have no good answer to this one. Unsatisfactory answer is that we want the dev diaries to appear in global section (because there they can be seen by people visiting any section of the forum), and at the same time appear in Panzer Corps 2 forum, where they all will remain in a prominent place for people who come to this forum specifically. And this board does not provide a technical ability to make a single post appearing in these two places simultaneously. This is definitely not perfect, and I know that Slitherine want to find a solution to this problem as much as I do, so hopefully it will be resolved at some point.

ptje63 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:56 pm Parameters were chosen in 2 steps shown in these 2 printscreens:

Thanks for reminder. That was a fun little game. Well, I can tell that parameters offered by Panzer Corps 2 will be no less flexible.

proline wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:41 pm On another note, if you are able to have recon confer stat improvements to adjacent units, why couldn't you add barrier troops to the game? Not everyone wanted to get slaughtered for mother Russia- many were coerced by Soviet anti-retreat forces. A barrier troop unit, or trait, could improve the stats of nearby conscripts while nullifying the tendency of any nearby unit to retreat or surrender when fully suppressed.

Technically it is not an issue to implement barrier troops, but we decided that they won't be included in the game for other reasons. However, most likely it will be easy to mod them into the game if anyone wants to do so.

captainjack wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:29 am As for bridging units, the worst tyhing about them is that they have the same move cost on rivers as every other unit - my most common bridgie experience is being one hex from a river, so next turn they move up to it. The turn after they enter, but by then momentum is lost and they start asking for a transfer to the HW platoon. Better charge only one move to enter - this makes bridgies a bit more useful (especially with a move hero) along with bridging tanks and other bridging vehicles.

Yes, we are going to change their movement table so that entering rivers is easier.

hugh2711 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:37 am On the subject of armoured cars; in the GC DLC's there are two scenarios where if you deliberately sacrifice a cheap armoured car you can quickly dominate and do the scenarios VERY easily AND quickly. Spoils of war if you sacrifice one you get control of the middle of the board and the rest very cheaply and quickly (I have an AAR of it). The italian one where you sink the battleships in harbour also. Once again if you sacrifice an armoured car you get control of the center easily and cheaply and hence the rest of the scenario.

Fascinating paragraph, reads very much like a description of some chess gambit where you sacrifice a pawn to gain control of the center. Do you have a link to that AAR?

adiekmann wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:57 pm Lastly, air recon!!! Biggest disappointment when it comes to omitted units. Again, I second everything that was said above.

In Panzer Corps 2 each major nation is going to have a few different air recon units.

proline wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:06 am Keep in mind you can move heroes around, so getting a spotting hero for a tank should be pretty easy.

Well I've never said that spotting heroes will be available, or that they will be available to any other classes besides recon.

hs1611 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:08 am That being said here go a few suggestions:
1 - spotting done by regulars units will show only type of unit and, maybe, size.
2 - same with air recon, but with a bigger spotting radius.
3 - ground recon units will spot everything (class, type, size, fuel, ammo, stars, heroes...).

I considered this, but it would create too much uncertainty in case recons are not involved. Basically, combat predictions can no longer be trusted and become pretty much useless. Since your recons cannot be everywhere, this can create a lot of frustration.

13obo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:23 am Recons have other uses apart from attacking.

Indeed. For example, they are great for harassing your opponent behind the lines, because they are cheap, fast, have phased movement and see further than most other units without any heroes or upgrades. So they can find a weak spot (like unprotected city) and strike there. I think, such use case is quite realistic too. Although naturally, it is not in great demand in each and every scenario.

13obo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:23 am On your point about their survivability, it was already mentioned you'll be able to overstrengthen them from day 1 so definitely won't be one-shottable.

Overstrength is an extra measure. In Panzer Corps 2, the formulas themselves are changed so that one-shotting a unit is much more difficult. Plus, this chance drops further with unit's experience. Not drastically (20% per star would indeed be too much and create very dangerous and unrealistic imbalances), but still.

PS. Thanks to all commenting on the recon topic. For me, every opinion is important (and no, Kerensky's experience as a scenario designer in no way invalidates his opinion as a player), but it's the variety of opinions which helps to understand the big picture. It is clear that you guys approach the problem of recon units from very different perspectives, so this is an interesting read. Keep it coming.

Rudankort wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:12 pmIn Panzer Corps 2, the formulas themselves are changed so that one-shotting a unit is much more difficult. Plus, this chance drops further with unit's experience. Not drastically (20% per star would indeed be too much and create very dangerous and unrealistic imbalances), but still.

So what's changing exactly?

hs1611 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:06 amSee, that's just not true. Just because RECON doesn't fit, or undermines, your style, that doesn't mean that it doesn't fit anyone's style or that it undermines everyone's style.
Some people have clearly found a way to use them, and are happy with it. I'm not one of them.
Just like some people like to limit themselves to an historical CORE, limiting the number of TIGERs, or whatever. I'm not one of them either.
And that's the beauty of this game. It fits almost everyone's preferences.
Should I lobby to make it impossible to win by using only the type of CORE, or the tactics, I prefer?

You seem to have completely missed my point which is that right now your choice is to either avoid things like recon and towed AT and play at the highest level you can, or use them and be stuck at a level below your ability. Wouldn't it be nice if you could indeed win with more than one composition without having to turn the difficulty down? Having more than one viable unit is a good thing. Nobody is saying recon has to be as mandatory as tanks, but it shouldn't be a throwaway class used only to goof around with 'historical' compositions or whatever.

hs1611 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:06 amShould I lobby to make the SOFT CAP mandatory, or to remove it completely?
NO, leave the choice to the player, that is to say to me and to you and to everyone else.

Leaving the soft cap to the player wasn't a good move, though it was understandable as it was added to the game after it shipped. Making it optional means that two players who both play on general difficulty are in two different universes. And it's pretty well established that turning it off so you can have an all-tiger 2 core isn't fun in the long run, so the temptation shouldn't exist. Some options are great, but others excuse the designers from making the tough calls that designers are paid to make. It is absolutely possible to have too many options in a game.

proline wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:28 pm So what's changing exactly?

In Panzer Corps combat round is one stage, with each shot resulting in deflect, suppress or kill. When attack is significantly higher than defense, the defender will suffer huge losses. In Panzer Corps 2 this process is two stage. First, all shots are interpreted as hits or misses, based on unit's accuracy. Second, each hit is interpreted as deflect, suppress or kill as before. Base unit accuracy is a global parameter which can be modified to make the game less or more bloody (making it 100% reverts the game to Panzer Corps 1 behavior). Main modifier of accuracy is experience, each star gives you a certain bonus to accuracy, and a certain (smaller) penalty to enemy units attacking you. All these parameters are configured in the game rules file. This gives experience a unique niche in the game, because it is difficult to replicate its effects by other means, although some unit traits and heroes can affect accuracy, plus overstrength naturally increases the number of hits.

Rudankort wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:12 pm
PS. Thanks to all commenting on the recon topic. For me, every opinion is important (and no, Kerensky's experience as a scenario designer in no way invalidates his opinion as a player), but it's the variety of opinions which helps to understand the big picture. It is clear that you guys approach the problem of recon units from very different perspectives, so this is an interesting read. Keep it coming.

The way that recons' survivability in Order of Battle is ingenious in my opinion so I thought to share. Without making recons overly strong in attack/defence, they were simply given a trait called "Quick Retreat", which makes the unit retreat a lot faster when it is defending itself against others. OOB doesn't have the PzC mechanics for retreat, but the idea is that the unit sustains a lot less damage than regular ones before the logic to retreat kicks in. This makes recon units survive a lot more, be better at harassing as they escape further away, but also make them less usable when defending positions (which makes sense as recon units are not a coherent fighting force).

I'm not sure how this could be handled for PzC2 retreat mechanics and combat results calculations, but one way could be as attacker/defender combat rounds are handled, make the unit retreat as soon as half of its strength is destroyed rather than completing the full combat cycle?

An alternative that would probably be simpler to implement is to make recon units (and the attacker too) fight at half strength. This simulates the fact that recons are hard to catch and destroy in direct confrontation. Again, if the attacker wins, the recon unit could retreat at half strength. Lastly, the minimum strength destroyed before retreat could be set to 2 for example so that the recon doesn't run too much.

Perhaps this would increase survivability of recons as they'd be able to survive after at least 3 attacks (10 -> 5 -> 2-> 0).

13obo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:24 pm Perhaps this would increase survivability of recons as they'd be able to survive after at least 3 attacks (10 -> 5 -> 2-> 0).

I keep solutions like this in mind as some kind of a "last resort" measure, because units with artificially increased survivability can get super annoying, especially in Multiplayer, and especially when this is combined with some other mechanics (like Split).

proline wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:36 pm You seem to have completely missed my point which is that right now your choice is to either avoid things like recon and towed AT and play at the highest level you can, or use them and be stuck at a level below your ability. Wouldn't it be nice if you could indeed win with more than one composition without having to turn the difficulty down? Having more than one viable unit is a good thing. Nobody is saying recon has to be as mandatory as tanks, but it shouldn't be a throwaway class used only to goof around with 'historical' compositions or whatever.

(...)

Leaving the soft cap to the player wasn't a good move, though it was understandable as it was added to the game after it shipped. Making it optional means that two players who both play on general difficulty are in two different universes. And it's pretty well established that turning it off so you can have an all-tiger 2 core isn't fun in the long run, so the temptation shouldn't exist. Some options are great, but others excuse the designers from making the tough calls that designers are paid to make. It is absolutely possible to have too many options in a game.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Just to make it clear why: I did not miss your point, I just don't agree with it.
I have fun playing around with towed AT as they are. Somebody else has fun playing with RECON.
I always have 1 Airborne Battlegroup (3 inf + 2 mortar + 1 AA - all air dropable) and 1 Mountain Battlegroup (same composition - all with alpine movement). They don't make sense from a "gaming for points" perspective, but I don't care. I have fun with it.
Just as in the same way I don't want SOFT CAP. Who told you that having an all TIGER/ME262 CORE isn't fun? Yes, it is.
You don't like it, that's fine. But why should I have to play the same way you do?
I believe there's room for everyone.
So, again I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.