Slitherine

Back on topic of the '44 DLC, I am really enjoying how the tactics are evolving. I've got as far as Warsaw Uprising (not started yet), but have already noticed in the previous two scenarios that infantry are making their way back into my core. I've really enjoyed the defensive nature of the battles, only striking back at the last minute. I've also tried an experiment, I've only used 8 aircraft in both the last two scenarios, four fighters and four of the FW fighter bombers, i.e. fighters with a little bit to help offensively. It is quite interesting that the Red Army wins the air battle by default. Until late on in the scenarios I've not been letting my fighters stray much beyond my front lines, using them to protect my artillery and pick off the Soviet planes one by one. It was a bit of a long term strategy, but eventually worked.

Minsk was really enjoyable and then along came Vilna, could a similar strategy work? After a long hard look at the map I decided to relinquish most of the territory to the Soviets from the start, i kept a strong core in the centre around Vilna and put the rest of my force up North to gradually sweep down, again using aircraft very defensively for most of the scenario. Well I'm not too sure if I get my core compositions right as i was hard pressed for a long time in Vilna, but the northern Kampfgruppe seemed to have, not an easy time, but certainly managed to keep going. Bearing in mind I'm only playing on the third difficulty level, and have plenty of prestige, I only managed to achieve a DV on turn 29! I'm sure I could've taken a few more risks, but I was constantly waiting for the infantry to catch up as I didnt want to risk them in the front lines unless they were protected by decent terrain.

After the shrinking pocket of Korsun, the moving pocket of the Escape from Korsun, this has to be my favourite so far. And now I have Warsaw to look forward to. Havent quite figured out what is going on there, it looks deceptively simple, a straightforward attritional slog, although I suspect a few surprises on the way judging from the briefing!

Loving this DLC and the different challenges it represents. Going back to the previous discussion about cores, all I will say is I'm still working on the premise that I'm some kind of elite Kampgruppe sent to firefight the toughest Soviet breakthroughs, which means I obviously get plenty of Panthers and Tigers:)

boredatwork wrote: IMO the ideal solution (obviously only implementable by the developers) would be instead of restricting a core force to a # of units per scenario, instead restrict it to a unit value. (Ie allow a player to choose any of his core units up to a total value of 3,000 pts(?) for Poland, gradually expanding to 20,000 pts(?) for Bagration, subject to some reasonable total # of units cap to prevent stupidity like spaming PzIs in Berlin.)

The HUUUUGE advantage of this approach is it makes a wider array of units viable late in the game giving people more **real** choice in how to construct their cores while simultaneously simplifying the job of the scenario designer who no longer has to balance the wildly different possibility of 10 PzIVs OR 10 Tiger IIs in a single premade scenario and instead can assume that player cores will fall within a more predictable norm of power either 14 PzIVs or 7 Tiger IIs. Similarly it neatly adresses the viability of the smaller AA guns, AT guns, and PzJgs - I can take 1x88 or 3x20mm - a much more viable CHOICE than 1x88 or 1x20mm. Do I use 250 Halftracks for my motorised units or do I make do with 251s and use the points saved to deploy an extra Stuka? Do I ad +5 overstrength to 2 units or do I deploy 3x10str units? etc, etc.

I'd much prefer having a prestige cap per scenario instead of the core slot system. Again, the problem voiced here is not the science fiction core vs "historical" core approach but the fact, that the current system promotes the use of only the best units, while the answer to the question what is the best way to get throught the DLCs', shouldn't be so obviouis. At least for me, the part when I have to decide about the unit deployment and the core composition is at least as enjoyable as the combat itself.

To my mind, the game strives to strike a balance between "educational" and "fun." It is educational to learn about the attributes of various kinds of units, hence the over-representation of various kinds of high-tech units as opposed to massive numbers of more or less indistinguishable infantry units, and it is more fun to deploy them. On the other hand, it is educational to learn about the challenges faced by commanders at various points in the war, hence the uneasiness that many players feel about deploying forces that, if available, would have entirely changed the dynamics of the situation. The developers have tried to strike a balance by arming the AI with an even more disproportionate number of high-tech units. I have been generally pleased with the result.

Zhivago wrote:

But isn't what we already have merely the illusion of choice?

Given that prestige in the campaign game is frequently more than sufficient to afford the best, where, other than for role play/handicap, are the reasons of taking anything else but the "best" that would make it an actual "choice"? Hence I think the desire isn't to enforce "historical accurate" OOBs on players as you claim but rather eliminate the kind of boring no brainer decision making currently involved in upgrading.

You are making my point for me. The goal of the game, as I understand it to be, is to win decisively as possible, in as few turns as possible, with as few casualties as possible. For me, at least, this is accomplished by using the best equipment that I can afford and that suits the needs of the particular scenario I am playing.

No you're missing the point -

Given that prestige is unlimited, picking 7 Tiger IIs vs. 7 PzIVs to fill 7 slots hardly constitutes a brain cell taxing decision does it? Choosing to pick the best equipement available is not a clever strategy on your part, it's the only optimal choice. Choosing anything else automatically results in a harder game. Furthermore it complicates the scenario designers job because he has to make the single scenario challenging to players with cores of widely differing combat values.

If the game actually encouraged the kind of freedom of choice you implied in your previous post, two players should be able to choose (within reason) very different core forces and face a **similar challenge** to achieving victory at a given difficulty level.


Again the intent is NOT to FORCE people to use PzIIIs and PzIVs and Tigers in the 3:3:1 Glantz approved "historically accurate" ratio but rather add the type of ecconomic incentive that the developers originally intended so that there would be positives and negatives to all choices AND simultaneously ease the scenario designer's balancing job by making the combat value of the core constant for that scenario.

Having unlimited slots available but having your deployable core ***value capped*** at some scenario specific amount still give you the freedom to take all King Tigers if that is what the player wants. The difference is the pre-made scenario would present approximately equal challenge for both players and thus present *truly viable* alternatives to an all King Tiger core.



"Do I want 40 of the best units or 60 average units" is a real choice compared to the current "do I want 40 average units or 40 of the best units?"

boredatwork wrote:"Do I want 40 of the best units or 60 average units" is a real choice compared to the current "do I want 40 average units or 40 of the best units?"

If I'm going against 100 of their best units it's pretty clear what I choose, assuming I want to keep playing!

The GCs are designed specifically the AI does NOT to use the best units. For every map, there are huge quantities of "junk" like T-34s in 1943. Only a few AI units are actually advanced tanks like KV-85 or IS-1 or IS-2.

This is different than say Lake Batalon in the Stock Campaign. The AI was given huge quantities of SU-100, so the players felt (with justification) they needed nearly all King Tigers to win DV. This is a bad map design, since there is also no strategy involved on this map: just have King Tigers.

Prestige cap would work fine for SP assuming it takes into account the prestige cost of all units already present in the core. Otherwise the player can game the system by buying units and disbanding them for prestige.

The idea has the added advantage of something that can be tied to a difficulty level. On Colonel, it can be so high that it is effectively the current system. On FM, it would be much lower.

Prestige cap, however, would not work for MP. I would easily want 60 of the average units over 40 of the best units in MP. The value of extra units is enormous, especially for the Soviets, who would flood every map with conscripts. Actually all factions would just flood the map with infantry WWI style. It would be a disaster.

We would then have the problem that SP and MP have different rules. That's something the developers do not want, for some reason. So we're back to square one.

The thing that bugs me about automatically getting the best units is that this is supposed to be a strategy game. There is no strategy when there is only one obvious choice. The best strategy games always struck a balance of units of different "tech tiers" and strived to make them viable the entire game, with different strengths and weaknesses. In Starcraft, zerglings or marines are still useful even once you unlock high tech units like Ultralisks and siege tanks. No, this doesn't mean for Panzer Corps I want a ratio of 5 Panzer IIs to 1 Tiger Tank for Kursk. For this game it means, for instance, is 1 Tiger Tank as good as 3 StuG IIIG? What about 1 StuG IIIG, 1 Panzer IVH, and 1 infantry? That is not so obvious. I could see using all three possibilities, depending on the situation at hand. Yet 3 Tiger Tanks are always better than any other combination.

I'm not sure that having a prestige cap would matter in the end though. Players might just demand that Tiger IIs have about the same prestige cap of a Panzer IV. Originally GC43 had much, much less prestige, but most players hated it during testing, as they couldn't get the best units. Maybe the quick solution would be to actually tie the difficulty levels be significantly different. Right now, only Manstein is effectively any different from Colonel once you play about 2 GCs, because you can save up huge amounts of prestige under anything, even Rommel. Even Manstein is a joke in 1943 if you use the best units, although it is really hard in the previous years because the German units weren't that much qualitatively superior. Note that Kerensky did not use the best units in 1943, and suffered horrible losses, but this was by choice. He was not powergaming, I guess to increase the challenge? Perhaps I just want anything above Colonel to be an actual challenge, where you can't just default to DV, but the design philosophy has been that since players want DV, they'll get DV. Since players want Tiger IIs, they'll get them, except for the insane crazy people like myself.

deducter wrote:Prestige cap, however, would not work for MP. I would easily want 60 of the average units over 40 of the best units in MP. The value of extra units is enormous, especially for the Soviets, who would flood every map with conscripts. Actually all factions would just flood the map with infantry WWI style. It would be a disaster.

We would then have the problem that SP and MP have different rules. That's something the developers do not want, for some reason. So we're back to square one.

You'll note I did suggest a unit cap would still be required in SP to prevent retarded min maxing like spamming of cheap tanks in 1945. Since the unit cap is still present both SP and MP would still be playing by the same rules, you would just tighten up the unit cap limit for the latter which, I assume, is little different than how MP is currently balanced?

I'm not sure that having a prestige cap would matter in the end though. Players might just demand that Tiger IIs have about the same prestige cap of a Panzer IV. Originally GC43 had much, much less prestige, but most players hated it during testing, as they couldn't get the best units.

I'm sure some people bitched that they couldn't build 200 battlecruisers when Starcraft came out - but afterwards most realised that from a balance PoV it was a huge improvement. I would think people would bitch about any change to Panzer Corps but after they get use to the idea most would probably come around to the fact that a value capped as opposed to quantity capped campaign core would be a good thing.

deducter wrote:except for the insane crazy people like myself.

hey I'm with ya there this is me. I try (((not))) to get bored with a good game. that means house rules and mods. what is great about PzC it's EASY to test ones skills at tactics and strategy and make them harder. one just has to adapt to how the game works and change things

El_Condoro wrote:PG2 had this (1997 I think it came out) - it was called the prestige cap. A player could not have more than a certain amount of prestige with which to start a campaign scenario. PzC has an experience cap but not a prestige cap. Seems easy enough to implement (he says not knowing!)

I'm not sure the PG2 prestige cap was actually what I was suggesting.

In PG2 IIRC it was possible just to dump excess prestige into more units on the map which leads back to the problem of the rich getting richer. Simply reducing prestige available still runs into the same issue as balancing the existing campaigns - it requires accurately predicting a player's expendature over the course of many scenarios to know what to set the cap at so he has enough, without giving him a glut that will just be dumped into buying the best available.

My suggestion was to replace the current **quantity based** unit slot system with a table top wargame-esq **Quality based** points system (think Warhammer or Flames of War). In the current quantity based system 10 Tigers always beats 10 PzIVs as long as you can afford them, and in the context of a campaign with pre-made scenarios, as mentioned above it's very hard to control prestige sufficiently to prevent a player from affording them, especially as in the long term they save money. In a quality based system 14 PzIVs, assuming the values are balanced, should be competitive option compared to 7 Tiger IIs as long as the map is not unusually congested.

Prestige would still be used to buy, repair, and upgrade your units.

However to actually deploy units on the map would involve a more involved core slot system where instead of 1 slot each, units would consume equivalent slots (or points) to their worth on the battlefield. (either based upon their initial prestige value or a seperate Starcraft esq stat - Marine takes 1 slot, BC takes 8, Zergling takes 1/2). The player would then be allowed to place as many of his core units in any combination up to a total value of the total **qualitive** value allowed by the scenario.

As Deducter implied this would also be easier to create more challenging difficulty levels - first because, even late war all players would start each and every scenario with a predictable strength core (10 PzIVs are worth ~5000 pts, 10 King Tiger 10000; whereas 14 PzIVs Or 7 King Tigers are both valued 7000 each) making the scenario designer's job easier as he no longer has to cover the widely varying probabilities in a single **pre-made** scenario of making it too hard for an average for or too easy for Tiger IIs to steamroll; and second a 25% reduction to a pool of 40k prestige late war is meaningless - a 25% reduction to value of allowable deployed forces late war on the other hand is significant.

boredatwork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

But isn't what we already have merely the illusion of choice?

Given that prestige in the campaign game is frequently more than sufficient to afford the best, where, other than for role play/handicap, are the reasons of taking anything else but the "best" that would make it an actual "choice"? Hence I think the desire isn't to enforce "historical accurate" OOBs on players as you claim but rather eliminate the kind of boring no brainer decision making currently involved in upgrading.

You are making my point for me. The goal of the game, as I understand it to be, is to win decisively as possible, in as few turns as possible, with as few casualties as possible. For me, at least, this is accomplished by using the best equipment that I can afford and that suits the needs of the particular scenario I am playing.

No you're missing the point -

Given that prestige is unlimited, picking 7 Tiger IIs vs. 7 PzIVs to fill 7 slots hardly constitutes a brain cell taxing decision does it? Choosing to pick the best equipement available is not a clever strategy on your part, it's the only optimal choice. Choosing anything else automatically results in a harder game. Furthermore it complicates the scenario designers job because he has to make the single scenario challenging to players with cores of widely differing combat values.

If the game actually encouraged the kind of freedom of choice you implied in your previous post, two players should be able to choose (within reason) very different core forces and face a **similar challenge** to achieving victory at a given difficulty level.


Again the intent is NOT to FORCE people to use PzIIIs and PzIVs and Tigers in the 3:3:1 Glantz approved "historically accurate" ratio but rather add the type of ecconomic incentive that the developers originally intended so that there would be positives and negatives to all choices AND simultaneously ease the scenario designer's balancing job by making the combat value of the core constant for that scenario.

Having unlimited slots available but having your deployable core ***value capped*** at some scenario specific amount still give you the freedom to take all King Tigers if that is what the player wants. The difference is the pre-made scenario would present approximately equal challenge for both players and thus present *truly viable* alternatives to an all King Tiger core.



"Do I want 40 of the best units or 60 average units" is a real choice compared to the current "do I want 40 average units or 40 of the best units?"

That is really a silly argument. That is like a football team saying, I am not going to use the best players on my team in the game--I am going to use the backups and substitutes and see if I can win the game. If that is the kind of game you are looking for, then go for it. Maybe you should try playing the Manstein level if you are looking for more of a challenge?

I must admit, that does sound like an elegant solution BoredatWork. It would definitely introduce a interesting dynamic into force composition. People that insist on having the "dream team" of all Tiger IIs and ME-262s would be able to do so on easier difficulties, while harder difficulties would force the player to use a more historical core.

Comparing the game to sport is not very appropriate IMO. In sport and in the real wars, the result is what only matters. What is most important for me in the game is the atmosphere and the right feel of the gameplay. But here again we enter the discussion about the individual preferences, which per se can go on forever and does not really make much sense.

monkspider wrote:I must admit, that does sound like an elegant solution BoredatWork. It would definitely introduce a interesting dynamic into force composition. People that insist on having the "dream team" of all Tiger IIs and ME-262s would be able to do so on easier difficulties, while harder difficulties would force the player to use a more historical core.

They should change the name of the game to Infantry Corp if we have to use historical cores!

ivanov wrote:Comparing the game to sport is not very appropriate IMO. In sport and in the real wars, the result is what only matters. What is most important for me in the game is the atmosphere and the right feel of the gameplay. But here again we enter the discussion about the individual preferences, which per se can go on forever and does not really make much sense.

Why not? Both war and sport have the same goal--victory. As MacArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory!" Again, if someone could create a game that had an accurate historical context that only permitted the use of certain equipment in each scenario, that would be fine by me. But the essence of Panzer Corps is to allow each player to build his core whatever way he wants to. As Kerensky said earlier in this thread, a player's core in this game is but a mere microcosm of the German Army as a whole, and certainly not a representative sample. If someone wants to challenge themselves playing the Korsun Pocket with Panzer II's and BF-109E's, then have at it. Maybe there should be a prize for winning a DLC 44 scenario with the most pathetic, outdated core possible?

If someone wants to challenge themselves playing the Korsun Pocket with Panzer II's and BF-109E's, then have at it. Maybe there should be a prize for winning a DLC 44 scenario with the most pathetic, outdated core possible?

Using Panzer II and Bf 109E in Korsun pocket is as wrong in a historical context as would be using Maus and Me 262 during that time. You admit yourself that historical context matters. Units should have historically inspired stats and historically inspired introduction dates.

I also don't think you realize that we're advocating for an impossible game here. Panzer IIs will die horribly in 1943, much less 1944.

I agree completely that you've solved the SP game Zhivago. There is no debate that your core composition is the best or nearly the best for the purpose of winning as quickly and efficiently possible, and I'm not being glib. I'm just disappointed the game is so easily solved. Since there is no other strategy that's worthwhile to try as someone like myself who is an advanced player, there's no real replay value.

I downloaded and played Unity of Command a week or so ago. It was fun, and an innovative game. But it wasn't long before I won brilliant victories on every single German map and most of the Soviet maps, since each map was more or less a puzzle. For brilliant victory the correct strategy to solve a map and usually some luck. After I did that, I got bored with the game. There was nothing left to do.

I am not bored by PzC by a long shot, because the game is much more open to modding, and there are more strategies to try.

deducter wrote:

If someone wants to challenge themselves playing the Korsun Pocket with Panzer II's and BF-109E's, then have at it. Maybe there should be a prize for winning a DLC 44 scenario with the most pathetic, outdated core possible?

Using Panzer II and Bf 109E in Korsun pocket is as wrong in a historical context as would be using Maus and Me 262 during that time. You admit yourself that historical context matters. Units should have historically inspired stats and historically inspired introduction dates.

I also don't think you realize that we're advocating for an impossible game here. Panzer IIs will die horribly in 1943, much less 1944.

I agree completely that you've solved the SP game Zhivago. There is no debate that your core composition is the best or nearly the best for the purpose of winning as quickly and efficiently possible, and I'm not being glib. I'm just disappointed the game is so easily solved. Since there is no other strategy that's worthwhile to try as someone like myself who is an advanced player, there's no real replay value.

I downloaded and played Unity of Command a week or so ago. It was fun, and an innovative game. But it wasn't long before I won brilliant victories on every single German map and most of the Soviet maps, since each map was more or less a puzzle. For brilliant victory the correct strategy to solve a map and usually some luck. After I did that, I got bored with the game. There was nothing left to do.

I am not bored by PzC by a long shot, because the game is much more open to modding, and there are more strategies to try.

The difference between using Panzer IIs and BF109E's in 1944 and ME 262's and Maus' in 1944 is that the former were available (albeit out of date), while the later were not available at the time the Korsun Pocket battle was fought. My example was obviously an over-exaggeration, but I agree that once you know each map, and once you know how best to use your equipment, the single-player game in Panzer Corps is easily solved. One proposal I advocated previously would be to add an element of randomness in the AI's placement of its units in each scenario, or randomness of which attack strategy the AI uses, or even random objectives in each scenario (like maybe having to capture a general, or an airfield, or something that the AI throws out just like it awards SS units randomly). The re-playability aspect of the game is something that definitely needs to be cultivated by the developers, as well as the modding community.

deducter wrote:

If someone wants to challenge themselves playing the Korsun Pocket with Panzer II's and BF-109E's, then have at it. Maybe there should be a prize for winning a DLC 44 scenario with the most pathetic, outdated core possible?

Using Panzer II and Bf 109E in Korsun pocket is as wrong in a historical context as would be using Maus and Me 262 during that time. You admit yourself that historical context matters. Units should have historically inspired stats and historically inspired introduction dates.

Historically tanks made less than 10% of the total German forces at the start of Barbarossa, ~200 total divisions & 20 were Panzer divisions. About 30% of German armour were PZII's or worse. I don't know of too many people who go into that scenario with that many 'obsolete' units. It doesn't make sense and you probably won't get far.
The game can't simulate all the other things that allowed the German to be successful with inferior or smaller numbers of equipment. So absent these the only way to make it through the game for most people is to have a better than historical force. Heck the PzII's were used all through the war. No one uses them in this game after '41 even if you are trying not to use only the latest and greatest units. They would just not last.

That is really a silly argument. That is like a football team saying, I am not going to use the best players on my team in the game--I am going to use the backups and substitutes and see if I can win the game. If that is the kind of game you are looking for, then go for it.

So silly it forms the basis for dozens of successful wargames that give players the option of picking their own force?

Actually it's more like a National Hockey League Team saying I would love to ice the 20 players from the all star team but because their collective salaries total ~150 million and I'm constrained by the SALARY CAP of 60 million a year I have to choose where to spend my finite budget - getting a few multi million dollar superstars then filling out the rest of the team with rookie talent.

Even then the sports analogy is flawed because I was not proposing constant numbers as you would find in a team based context but variable numbers depending upon the quality of the unit in question.

Zhivago wrote: But the essence of Panzer Corps is to allow each player to build his core whatever way he wants to.

On the contrary - go back to the original Beta discussion - the goal of PzC wasn't to allow each player to build his core whatever way he wants to - If that were the case why bother with prestige at all? Why not just give players the automatic option of always having the best equipment as soon as possible?

The essence of Panzer Corps was to trade off limited resources to build his core in whatever compromise he wants to.

To quote Alex:

I don't want to prohibit the player from using many Tigers in all cases. It just should not be a no-brainer as in PG. You can have many Tigers if you want, but then you need to make compromises and buy less cool fighters/tac bombers/artillery

Currently that is NOT the case in PzC. You do not need to make compromises. You pick the best equipment which saves you prestige and allows you to go on upgrading to the best equipment. Again it is a no brainer decision which doesn't involve any strategy in a strategy game.

Check out my early Barbarossa videos. I used a Panzer II, a Panzer I, and a P38(t), along with various other "obsolete" units like the Pak 36, all against T-34 tanks with better attack and defense, although they had less initiative.

Except, much like the Germans, I didn't actually fight the T-34s with my Panzer IIs. Whenever that happened historically, it was a massacre. I did what happened historically. I avoided fighting the Soviet armor head on when possible, I called in air power or I used the 88 gun, or I killed the Soviet tanks in close terrain with infantry.

Something like this impresses me about the game, which gives a good approximation of what happened in history. It'd be wrong and ahistorical if somehow my Panzer II can destroy a T-34 one-on-one. I would be very unhappy with that.

deducter wrote:Check out my early Barbarossa videos. I used a Panzer II, a Panzer I, and a P38(t), along with various other "obsolete" units like the Pak 36, all against T-34 tanks with better attack and defense, although they had less initiative

That's why I said most people.

Did you keep the 10-1 infantry to tank historical ratio also?