Slitherine

Will this be applied to the older games as an update?

Mountaineer wrote:Will this be applied to the older games as an update?

Yes, of course.

Regarding:
- Forcing enemy units to surrender earns you prestige (*)
- Overstrength is progressively more expensive with every point applied (*)

I like both of them. It will change the way I play the DLC's for sure. Changes like this really will keep the game fresh.

The replay feature is still quite new, I realize but when I was watching one of my replays and then chose tried to back to the main menu the program crashed and I got "Panzer Corps encountered an error and needs to closed"

It appears max unsuppressed strength is now Entrenchment -1? (beta 2) I noticed that now at Medinine.

Kamerer wrote:It appears max unsuppressed strength is now Entrenchment -1? (beta 2) I noticed that now at Medinine.

Not really, probably just a coincidence. The new mechanic with 2x defense bonus from entrenchment against ranged attacks should have a similar effect to hard cap on suppression from beta 1. I've just made a quick test - tried to suppress a unit with 5 strength but 30 entrenchment, and I was able to suppress it fully. Took a few attacks to do it though.

Not sure if you are watching every thread here Rudankort so i just link it here again. A problem with replays mentioned here.

Tarrak wrote:Not sure if you are watching every thread here Rudankort so i just link it here again. A problem with replays mentioned here.

Thanks. I try to read every thread, but I can easily miss something. I'll check out what happens there. Most likely, when loaded from mid-scenario, the game just loads replay as an ordinary saved game. This is clearly a bug - either the game should load replays correctly, or Replays tab must be disabled when loaded mid-scenario. Not sure which is best.

Call me old fashioned, but I think a lot of the suggestions on changing the game mechanics are unnecessary, and only benefit a select "elite" core of Panzer Corps gamers. People who are ultra-geeked up about the game, and its mechanics, and designing scenarios might be interested in the enhancements, but I fear that game play will ultimately suffer and become more bland for the average player. I would like to hear some data on who the average PzC corps player is, and what makes the game interesting to them. For every self-professed student of PzC on this board, or in beta testing, I wonder how many other casual players are there out there that are interested all of these changes. Panzer Corps became a hit and led to the expansion into Allied Corps we are testing now based on the game mechanics as they have been. Tinker too much with it, and I think Panzer Corps will become a game that is too difficult and ponderous for the majority of casual players who are not beta testers, developers, or frequent posters on these boards. Knowing when to leave well enough alone is a very important skill in life. I encourage the devs not to forget this with Allied Corps.

Zhivago wrote:Call me old fashioned, but I think a lot of the suggestions on changing the game mechanics are unnecessary, and only benefit a select "elite" core of Panzer Corps gamers. People who are ultra-geeked up about the game, and its mechanics, and designing scenarios might be interested in the enhancements, but I fear that game play will ultimately suffer and become more bland for the average player. I would like to hear some data on who the average PzC corps player is, and what makes the game interesting to them. For every self-professed student of PzC on this board, or in beta testing, I wonder how many other casual players are there out there that are interested all of these changes. Panzer Corps became a hit and led to the expansion into Allied Corps we are testing now based on the game mechanics as they have been. Tinker too much with it, and I think Panzer Corps will become a game that is too difficult and ponderous for the majority of casual players who are not beta testers, developers, or frequent posters on these boards. Knowing when to leave well enough alone is a very important skill in life. I encourage the devs not to forget this with Allied Corps.

If you think that any of the changes listed in the first topic actually make the game more complex for casual players, let me know. Looking at the list now, I don't a see single change which makes the game more complex than it already is - all new mechanics work completely transparently to the player. But as his skill improves, he can start using them to his advantage. That's the general formula behind Panzer Corps - "easy to play, hard to master".

i have agree totally with Rudankort here ... for all that counts.

"Reinforcements come suppressed" gets a bit lost while we are discussing entrenchment and overstrength.

The entrenchment rules change works nicely. Doesn't break older content.
New overstrength rules, despite my concerns, worked out nicely so far, at least for me.

"Reinforcements come suppressed" however changed gameplay quite a lot. IMO it has the chance to break DLC scenarios polished and optimized under the old rules.

A unit that just barely escaped with 1-2 strength cannot reinforce to 10 and be fully operational during the enemies next attack. This is what the mechanic prevents. Good thing, bad thing - a matter of taste, it just changes gameplay quite a lot. Also when thinking about defenders reinforcing after being shelled by artillery. This almost cries to rotate them away and a new unit in.

Now let's take a look at THE HAGUE, DLC 40. I am afraid paratroopers suffer the most under the new rules. After cheating myself to this point in the campaign and just playing with the German Fallschirmjägers I must say: It works, but it gets definitely more difficult and dangerous. For when a unit is really damaged and repaired, it's highly suppressed and the AI will immediately exploit that and attack.

I hope someone saved a Stalingrad scenario to test this, during Allied Corps testing MARKET GARDEN will probably the best scenario to test the effects of these new mechanics.

Longasc wrote: "Reinforcements come suppressed" however changed gameplay quite a lot. IMO it has the chance to break DLC scenarios polished and optimized under the old rules.

A unit that just barely escaped with 1-2 strength cannot reinforce to 10 and be fully operational during the enemies next attack. This is what the mechanic prevents. Good thing, bad thing - a matter of taste, it just changes gameplay quite a lot. Also when thinking about defenders reinforcing after being shelled by artillery. This almost cries to rotate them away and a new unit in.

Now let's take a look at THE HAGUE, DLC 40. I am afraid paratroopers suffer the most under the new rules. After cheating myself to this point in the campaign and just playing with the German Fallschirmjägers I must say: It works, but it gets definitely more difficult and dangerous. For when a unit is really damaged and repaired, it's highly suppressed and the AI will immediately exploit that and attack.

I hope someone saved a Stalingrad scenario to test this, during Allied Corps testing MARKET GARDEN will probably the best scenario to test the effects of these new mechanics.

To be honest, I'm more concerned that this change will harm the AI. Human players are always much better in exploiting various mechanics to their advantage. Thus, dealing with defensive artillery behind the line will become easier, because if it is damaged, it will not be able to fire with full strength even if reinforced. Human players are much better in retreating, rotating units and regrouping too.

More opinions on this would be very useful.

Good point Longsac, replacements coming supressed is a major change, but it is probably the one I like the most. I can't count the number of times that I got an AI unit down to one or two strength, only to have it escape beyond the range of my units, and then the next turn it was back up to full strength and just as effective as ever. I always thought that was a bit cheesy. It is definitely a significant change, but my first thought was that it was going to make the game easier rather than harder. More testing is definitely warranted though.

And also, FWIW, I am fully behind the current list of changes now that overstrength no longer being tied to experience has been dumped. I think it is exciting that some really cool changes are finally being made to address some of the balancing issues in the game.

One thing I like that I haven't commented on so far that I really like is how the new experience rules will really anti-air and anti-tank, getting +2 air attack and +2 hard attack respectively per experience level is going to make a big difference.

Rudankort wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Call me old fashioned, but I think a lot of the suggestions on changing the game mechanics are unnecessary, and only benefit a select "elite" core of Panzer Corps gamers. People who are ultra-geeked up about the game, and its mechanics, and designing scenarios might be interested in the enhancements, but I fear that game play will ultimately suffer and become more bland for the average player. I would like to hear some data on who the average PzC corps player is, and what makes the game interesting to them. For every self-professed student of PzC on this board, or in beta testing, I wonder how many other casual players are there out there that are interested all of these changes. Panzer Corps became a hit and led to the expansion into Allied Corps we are testing now based on the game mechanics as they have been. Tinker too much with it, and I think Panzer Corps will become a game that is too difficult and ponderous for the majority of casual players who are not beta testers, developers, or frequent posters on these boards. Knowing when to leave well enough alone is a very important skill in life. I encourage the devs not to forget this with Allied Corps.

If you think that any of the changes listed in the first topic actually make the game more complex for casual players, let me know. Looking at the list now, I don't a see single change which makes the game more complex than it already is - all new mechanics work completely transparently to the player. But as his skill improves, he can start using them to his advantage. That's the general formula behind Panzer Corps - "easy to play, hard to master".

I'm not a casual player. I played Panzer General for years, and I've been playing Panzer Corps for the last two years. I own every Panzer Corps scenario that has been released. As such, you'll need to wait to hear from the masses after the game is released on D-Day. All of the new "tweaks" that have been added have made the game more difficult. I can roll with this, as I play on FM anyway. I think all of the complaints about artillery, OS, and what not, were BS anyway. I liked the system the way it was. I think if changes were to be incorporated in those areas, it could have been made optional, just like the weather, or fog of war, etc. You presumably want our feedback, so I am giving it to you.

Zhivago wrote:I'm not a casual player. I played Panzer General for years, and I've been playing Panzer Corps for the last two years. I own every Panzer Corps scenario that has been released. As such, you'll need to wait to hear from the masses after the game is released on D-Day. All of the new "tweaks" that have been added have made the game more difficult. I can roll with this, as I play on FM anyway. I think all of the complaints about artillery, OS, and what not, were BS anyway. I liked the system the way it was. I think if changes were to be incorporated in those areas, it could have been made optional, just like the weather, or fog of war, etc. You presumably want our feedback, so I am giving it to you.

Of course. Thanks for feedback. As I understand, you want the game to work the old way. Your vote is counted.

I like to chip in and add my vote to Zhivago. I'm playing PG series for almost 20 years. It even beats Civilization to it and there is a reason for that. I read Deducter snowball thread and I agree with many things said about the snowball effect but I also don't care. Because I'm having fun, despite it was there since the beginning. It's very likely that in 20 years from now I'm going to pull out my dusty copy of PC from the shelve to finish an other playthrough of the Grand Campaign.
The game is already great as it is, and in my opinion it's difficult to improve what is already good, but every easy to make it worse. Change? Progression? Sure, but serenity is found in moderation.

Zhivago wrote: I'm not a casual player. I played Panzer General for years, and I've been playing Panzer Corps for the last two years. I own every Panzer Corps scenario that has been released. As such, you'll need to wait to hear from the masses after the game is released on D-Day. All of the new "tweaks" that have been added have made the game more difficult. I can roll with this, as I play on FM anyway. I think all of the complaints about artillery, OS, and what not, were BS anyway. I liked the system the way it was. I think if changes were to be incorporated in those areas, it could have been made optional, just like the weather, or fog of war, etc. You presumably want our feedback, so I am giving it to you.

In the current system, rule changes always apply for all difficulties. I'm not so sure that's the best way to do things, but rather, certain rules should only take effect on certain difficulties.

I do agree that some of the changes that make the boilerplate strategies harder to execute (progressive overstrength cost increase) should be limited to FM+ difficulties. I am very much in favor of higher difficulty levels enabling new rules. I think the game could stand to be easier on General and Colonel, but preferably there are some additional levels between FM and General.

Or, on General, overstrength can be untied to experience level. That might make the game easier for many players, but that difficulty is meant to be pretty easy. However, this option is not available on FM+.

Difficulty levels could definitely be more varied, with a lot of additional factors. For instance, in the scenario editor, there can be options for whether an event triggers based on difficulty. There might be more enemy units that only arrive at higher difficulties. Or, placement of enemies could be randomized, but only at higher difficulties. Or all those extra bonus units with heroes introduced in the new GC update might be disabled on the bonus difficulties (Rommel, Guderian, Manstein). If the issue is that there aren't enough difficulty levels, just create a few more difficulties between General and FM and add some extra nuance.

Having more content is great, but I'd much rather have less content that is more replayable/more varied. Once you play a PzC map, it's hard to be surprised again. Although in some of the new maps, there is some randomization of enemy troop and objective placement.

deducter wrote: In the current system, rule changes always apply for all difficulties. I'm not so sure that's the best way to do things, but rather, certain rules should only take effect on certain difficulties.

I have no objections to this approach in general, but I have a question: which of the changes discussed in this topic you suggest to reserve for higher difficulties?

deducter wrote: Difficulty levels could definitely be more varied, with a lot of additional factors. For instance, in the scenario editor, there can be options for whether an event triggers based on difficulty. There might be more enemy units that only arrive at higher difficulties. Or, placement of enemies could be randomized, but only at higher difficulties. Or all those extra bonus units with heroes introduced in the new GC update might be disabled on the bonus difficulties (Rommel, Guderian, Manstein). If the issue is that there aren't enough difficulty levels, just create a few more difficulties between General and FM and add some extra nuance.

The problem with this approach is, we would need to test campaign on every difficulty separately, because these difficulty-specific triggers could have bugs in them, and so these bugs can only be detected when playing on this given difficulty. I think that more options which can be applied to any scenario or campaign would be much more helpful.