Germans vs. italians in the core

[Erik2]

Interesting thread.
I hope history is not thrown out the window with players being allowed to disband the Italians and carry on with a German-only force in the campaign. A DAK without the Italians being part of the core is not very interesting IMO.
I think the best solution would be separate German/Italian cores.
Also bring on more Italian units suggested in previous posts; paras, engineers, armor, recon, air etc.
Lower the purchase/upgrade costs for Italian units. Please do not make them artificially stronger.

[VPaulus]

Will i manage to get a DV every time? Probably not, but that is not necessary.

You know that for some players if you don't get a DV in the hardest level than the game is flawed.

Personally I would favor a mixed corp, but I think some people wouldn't like to play that way. This expansion is called Afrika Korps and people expect to play with Afrika Korps, not the Axis forces in the desert cxampaign.
But for me, like I've told, it would be rather funny to play with two cores. That would entice me.

People in general like to play more with Germans. German militaria always attracted more people than any other country.
Even if you buff the Italian units to the Germans, people will always tend to use more the Germans.

This is true, but what does this give us? Same argument could be used to reason that we don't need to create any allied campaigns at all.

No, because there you're playing with the side of good guys. That will have an extra appeal.There are people who won't touch this game until you don't have an allied campaign.

[El_Condoro]

Does this mean, now you are ok with the concept of italians in the core?

I have always been OK with Italian units in the core - as a choice for the player. I still think they're better separated out but that's just an opinion. The way I played this campaign is not the way I will play it again - I will add challenge such as Italian units to offset scenario knowledge but, in any case, I was not saying it was the best way to play - only that it should be a choice to play that way.

[Chris10]

Go read the huge forum topic from earlier this year--I just quoted you in it, so it is in the regular main forum. Read why it is nearly impossible to argue for "historical accuracy" in this game.

Try to understand that we talk about "some historical consistency" as a basic setting ...which has nothing, but nothing, to do with "historical accuracy"...its more than obvious that historical accuracy can never be achieved in a game as history is history and we know how it ended so constantly coming back to this is really a moot point...in that regard the discussion which has taken place sometime,somewhere in the past is, to be honest and with all due respect, irrelevant to me and to the cause of this debate...

[Ballacraine]

I think what we really need to keep in mind is historical plausibility, not so much religiously documented history.

Balla.

[Zhivago]

Go read the huge forum topic from earlier this year--I just quoted you in it, so it is in the regular main forum. Read why it is nearly impossible to argue for "historical accuracy" in this game.

Try to understand that we talk about "some historical consistency" as a basic setting ...which has nothing, but nothing, to do with "historical accuracy"...its more than obvious that historical accuracy can never be achieved in a game as history is history and we know how it ended so constantly coming back to this is really a moot point...in that regard the discussion which has taken place sometime,somewhere in the past is, to be honest and with all due respect, irrelevant to me and to the cause of this debate...

That is just semantics...

[deducter]

You know that for some players if you don't get a DV in the hardest level than the game is flawed.

What exactly is the hardest level anyway? Manstein? The hidden "Ultimate" level, which is pretty much unplayable? So it's a flaw that the game can't be beaten on Ultimate?

Perhaps you mean that if you can't get DV on FM, then the game is flawed. That's a fair argument, and one I would agree with. But the difficulty of this game (except Manstein and Guderian) doesn't really come from the difficulty levels, it comes from the quality of the player's core. The technical differences between Colonel and FM is relatively small. If you can beat the game with DV on Colonel with a given core, you can beat it on FM with the exact same core. If you are struggling on FM with a given core, you'll still struggle on Colonel with the exact same core.

This emphasis on core quality has made battlefield tactics almost entirely irrelevant if the player has a strong core. All the subtleties of the game are gone. For example, this is why some players think infantry is useless in SP. Just roll up elite tanks, backed by elite SP artillery to a city, one bombard, one attack, and you've won. You try this in MP, it fails terribly, because you'll find that green artillery doesn't work so well. An entrenched infantry in a city can be a very hard defender to root out in MP and really requires another infantry or two to kill.

Anyway, you can tune the game so that you can still win despite the qualitative difference between armies. Look at the balanced MP maps (with the exception of ICRS) all of them can be won by both sides, despite the qualitative difference between armies. The Germans are always the strongest in terms of combat power, but they are also the most expensive. The Allies have the advantage of more manpower and equipment. So it's certainly possible to make a game where the side with the inferior equipment has an equal chance of victory.

[Rudankort]

What exactly is the hardest level anyway? Manstein? The hidden "Ultimate" level, which is pretty much unplayable? So it's a flaw that the game can't be beaten on Ultimate?

Perhaps you mean that if you can't get DV on FM, then the game is flawed. That's a fair argument, and one I would agree with. But the difficulty of this game (except Manstein and Guderian) doesn't really come from the difficulty levels, it comes from the quality of the player's core. The technical differences between Colonel and FM is relatively small. If you can beat the game with DV on Colonel with a given core, you can beat it on FM with the exact same core. If you are struggling on FM with a given core, you'll still struggle on Colonel with the exact same core.

The difference between difficulty levels is supposed to be exactly that: on a more difficult level getting the same powerful core is harder, and consequently, more advanced tactics are required.

BTW, if you have suggestions how to change the difficulties to make them better (for Africa specifically, or in general), let me know.

[VPaulus]

You know that for some players if you don't get a DV in the hardest level than the game is flawed.

What exactly is the hardest level anyway? Manstein? The hidden "Ultimate" level, which is pretty much unplayable? So it's a flaw that the game can't be beaten on Ultimate?

Perhaps you mean that if you can't get DV on FM, then the game is flawed.

What I meant was actually regardless of the level of difficulty; for some people If they can't get a DV (even when we know it's possible) it's because the game is flawed and not their strategy. They are ready to blame the game rather themselves.
So I say it's always important to assure that a DV is feasible even in the FM level, at least we don't give them arguments for ranting.

[deducter]

I can't think of a quick solution to adjust the game so that Colonel and FM feel as different as FM and Manstein. I'm just brainstorming here, tossing out some ideas. One idea is to add core restrictions on FM but not on General or Colonel, but it seems like this is a very unpopular idea.

Another thought I have, if it's an easy thing to code, is simply to allow the player to set various parameters of difficulty in gamerules.pzdat. There could be one setting for "PercentPlayerPrestige," so if you input -75 it'd apply a -75% prestige to all sources of prestige income, or if you input +50 it'd apply +50%, and so on. Another parameter could be "PercentScenarioTurns," which function in a similar manner. If I input -25, it'd reduce all turns by 25%. Another parameter could be "AIStrengthModifier," so inputting 2 would give all AI units 2 extra strength. There can be any number of different options, affecting AI experience too. You can even change this to a new file "difficulty.pzdat" to allow the creation of customized difficulty settings. If it's not too much work, it could be a nice way for a player to custom tailor the difficulty for himself.

Another idea I have that is decidedly less easy to implement is if the game detected the player's core quality and compensated itself to give the player a challenge, on a new difficulty setting. The game detects the total amount of prestige of the player's units (including overstrength costs), and compensates the AI in some way, probably in the strength/experience of its units, to provide a suitable challenge. There would be a minimal threshold so that the player can't just buy all the worst units and encounter a bad AI force. But I imagine this is probably technically very hard to pull off.

[billmv44]

Another idea I have that is decidedly less easy to implement is if the game detected the player's core quality and compensated itself to give the player a challenge, on a new difficulty setting. The game detects the total amount of prestige of the player's units (including overstrength costs), and compensates the AI in some way, probably in the strength/experience of its units, to provide a suitable challenge. There would be a minimal threshold so that the player can't just buy all the worst units and encounter a bad AI force. But I imagine this is probably technically very hard to pull off.

Maybe just detect the percentage of German to Italian units in the core at turn 1. The more German units above the historical ratio, gives the AI a prestige boost. Ideally, this would be optional for the player to turn on or off (on would be the default).

[Cygnus2112]

My thoughts on this topic are that I personally like the idea of having a "Minimum" number of units in my core that must be Italian. Preserves the feel of the subject of the game. I would also say that I understand how some people would hate being forced into that box so, perhaps an option at the beginning of the campaign that allows players to remove the Minimum Italiain core unit requirement. This way you can play the game how you want and it might encourage some replayability to go back and try the campaign again and see how changing that option changes the game.

Cygnus

[El_Condoro]

Tarrak raised an interesting observation here that the AI seemed to target Italian units.

Perhaps another way to encourage the use of Italian units is if the AI targeted German units instead, or at least more.

[nikivdd]

Nikivdd raised an interesting observation here that the AI seemed to target Italian units.

Perhaps another way to encourage the use of Italian units is if the AI targeted German units instead, or at least more.

D, i know you like me but i think it was Tarrak who made the observation

[Chris10]

Nikivdd raised an interesting observation here that the AI seemed to target Italian units.

which is obvious as their stats are lower than those of their german counterparts and the odds are better ...

Iam not sure that it would be easy to make them attack german units instead and get a satisfying result in the gameplay as there are so many possible considerations to get in mind when to prefer a german unit and when not and when its simply a complete suicide attack..
Sparing the italians by coding it in would feel unnatural,wouldnt it ?

[ivanov]

In beta 1 we have seen many times that people were disbanding their italian units in the core and replaced them german ones, and while in beta 2 italians have better upgrade options, this still may not be enough to change this trend. Please share your opinion on this issue in this topic:
- Is this situation ok, or shall be addressed in some way?
- If it is not fine, how can we address it?

I am wondering why this issue has been brought up now? I have a feeling, that so far the devs were rather encouraging the "players can do whatever they want" approach. I.E. they should be able to field the cores equipped with the best possible hardware, if such is their wish. Has this approach changed with "Afrika Korps"? The obvious solution would be to limit the German core slots. But I'm not sure if a lot of people would agree with this. It seems that a considerable majority of players, preferes not to have those restraints. I personaly would go for limiting the core slots of the German units. But if that was not to be implemented, I'd simply follow some self imposed rules.

[Chris10]

The obvious solution would be to limit the German core slots. But I'm not sure if a lot of people would agree with this. It seems that a considerable majority of players, preferes not to have those restraints. I personaly would go for limiting the core slots of the German units. But if that was not to be implemented, I'd simply follow some self imposed rules.

By counting persons in this topic for pro and contra I cant seem to detect this vast majority you speak about ... ...
Iam also all for nation core slots as this function, if properly usable thru the editor, will be of great usage for scneario and campaign design..simply to make sure minor nations are represented and not changed for other equipment for the sake of exploit

[ivanov]

The obvious solution would be to limit the German core slots. But I'm not sure if a lot of people would agree with this. It seems that a considerable majority of players, preferes not to have those restraints. I personaly would go for limiting the core slots of the German units. But if that was not to be implemented, I'd simply follow some self imposed rules.

By counting persons in this topic for pro and contra I cant seem to detect this vast majority you speak about ... ...
Iam also all for nation core slots as this function, if properly usable thru the editor, will be of great usage for scneario and campaign design..simply to make sure minor nations are represented and not changed for other equipment for the sake of exploit

I would expect most of the beta testers to support more difficult approach and some limitations in the game, but there is no clear majority even here. I bet that the most of the players don't even visit the regular forum and I have a feeling, that they are the ones who would feel bad about imposing some restricions upon them.

An option with the limited core slots for the Germans, that can be disabled via settings, seems like a reasonable solution that would satisfy almost everyone

[Ballacraine]

An option with the limited core slots for the Germans, that can be disabled via settings, seems like a reasonable solution that would satisfy almost everyone

Not sure on that one.

If the unit choice of the Italians is bulked out, using some / all of the suggestions on this thread, it might tempt the player to keep to a more historical mix?

For myself, at the moment I tend to replace destroyed Italian core units with German as slots become available.

As I suggested earlier, not allowing disbanding of Italian core units would help maintain some early balance.

Making these restrictions optional at the campaign outset would minimise the outcry from any 'haters.'

Balla.

[LostAgain]

Let me say first that I'm firmly in the "auxiliaries are cannon fodder” category. Not only that, but I exchanged all of my Italian core units at the first opportunity, figuring that short term pain for long term gain was worth it.

Having said that I wish that there was some way (perhaps by raising their initiative?) to give the elite Italian units, (granted there weren’t many), such as the Ariete Tank Div. the respect they’re due. These guys fought under inferior officers in death traps that were riveted together and were a joke compared to everyone else’s equipment, and they fought well. Of course they lost, the deck was stacked against them from the start, but the elite Italian units were comparable to any other nations as far as esprite de corp, daring, and heroism are concerned IMO.

One wonders what their record would look like had they had decent leadership and equipment, but I digress. IF one is to keep Italian units in his core group there must be an incentive, and as Italy switched to the Allies later in the war there is no advanced equipment to look forward to.
To compensate for this, give incentive to keep Italian units in the core force, and to give the Italian units a fighting chance. Perhaps they could be given access to the German equipment line, but perhaps on a lower level? Using tanks as an example, when the Panther D becomes available to the Germans make the Panzer IVG or IVH available to the Italians? This was in fact practiced by the Germans, mostly with their Hungarian and Romanian allies, and admittedly typically inferior or outdated equipment was made available, but the precedent is there.

Another way to do this is to make specific German equipment available to the Italians, specifically SP guns such as the StuG series and the Jagdpanther. The Germans DID give these, (especially StuG III’s) to the Hungarians and Romanians on a limited basis as they were cheaper to produce. Also, the Hungarians built the Zrinyi II their own version of the StuH 42. So again there is a precedent for German SP’s being used by fellow Axis armies.

I’d like to suggest that Italian TANK units be allowed to upgrade using these SP guns as well. It was VERY common in the German army for crewmen of tanks and SP’s to move laterally between the two, the most famous example being Michael Wittmann, and what after all is an upgrade? It’s CREWS being trained to operate newer, better equipment. So let the Italian crews have SP’s and I for one would attempt to keep them in my core instead of jettisoning them as fast as possible.

To summarize my suggestions:
1. Give elite Italian units higher initiative levels
2. Make German technology available to the Italians belatedly
3. Let Italian tank crews upgrade to German SP’s
4. I didn’t mention it above, but giving Italian infantry access to afv’s wouldn’t hurt either. ANYTHING that offers a modicum of protection from arty and aircraft!

Don’t know if any of these would really make a difference, but I for one would at least attempt to keep Italian units in my core if any or all of these were implemented.