DLC Core Slots

[adiekmann]

While we are anxiously awaiting AO1942, I thought I'd throw out a topic for conversation and one which I have been pondering about for some time.

The number of core slots we've been given has been fairly consistent through all the DLCs. But what do you guys think it should be set for the coming DLC(s)? Should the increase in core slots be basically just enough to cover the increase in core slots that the better panzers (and other units) will require (e.g. a Pz. IVG costs 5 slots vs. the a Pz. IIIH's 3 slots)? Or would you like to see an increase that's significant enough to not only cover the "core inflation" of better units, but also allow more units of your core to be regularly deployed at the same time for future battles/maps?

While keeping the total on the tight side, it will force players to continue to make some tough choices over what to deploy and what to put in reserve. However, while I'm not looking to deploy every single one of my units in most battles, I do hope we see a significant increase on average that goes beyond just dealing with the "core inflation."

What are your thoughts? Do you feel the core slot allotment has been largely just right, too tight, or too generous? And what about future DLCs (even though that's tough since we don't know what the battles/maps will be)?

[VirgilInTheSKY]

I think it should be increased besiclly because there will be more bigger assets pouring in from 1942, infantry, tanks, self-propelled guns, aircrafts...whatever. Even running with both Infantry General and Panzer General I am still feeling that sometimes the slot given is a little tight, and I'm sure this will continue to be the case in the future.

[Bee1976]

However, while I'm not looking to deploy every single one of my units in most battles, I do hope we see a significant increase on average that goes beyond just dealing with the "core inflation."

What are your thoughts?

Well i hope for the same. I enjoy big battles and many enemies and big maps. And of course the ability to deploy a big core

[Scrapulous]

I hope the limit won't be so high that you can just convert all of your PzIIIFs into Tigers on a one-for-one basis and expect to deploy them all. I'd like to see some reasons to field the the light and medium tanks beyond "I have 2 core spots left, I might as well toss this old Panzer III in there." In late 1941 there's a little bit of slot tension that I see when evaluating whether to upgrade my Char B1 to a KV-1, for instance. The KV-1 is somewhat better, but costs more core slots. The Char is spectacularly slot-efficient, so it winds up supporting the assault on Moscow. Slot efficiency is an interesting way to look at units and I think it adds to the game; if there is too much inflation of core slots, then that will disappear.

Another example: the 8-rad recons become available in '41, but cost 3 slots, which is 1 more than every other recon available to that point. Their stats are not much different than what has come before, with one crucial exception: their movement type is All Terrain, which frees them from roads and makes them viable in the mud and snow of the Russian maps to come. That's a case where I'm willing to let my slot efficiency drop (i.e. the amount of attack and defense stat per core slot spent), because the improved mobility is essential: a 2 slot recon that can never make it to any battles isn't worth much to me, while a 3 slot recon that can get where I need it is great.

If core space always increases to match the increased core cost of units, then... well, I'd argue that's a failure of the core slot design. At that point, every unit might as well cost one core slot, or you may as well be given, for example, room for 6 infantry units, 4 armor units, 2 recon units, 4 artillery units, etc.

[Tassadar]

I hope the limit won't be so high that you can just convert all of your PzIIIFs into Tigers on a one-for-one basis and expect to deploy them all. I'd like to see some reasons to field the the light and medium tanks beyond "I have 2 core spots left, I might as well toss this old Panzer III in there." In late 1941 there's a little bit of slot tension that I see when evaluating whether to upgrade my Char B1 to a KV-1, for instance. The KV-1 is somewhat better, but costs more core slots. The Char is spectacularly slot-efficient, so it winds up supporting the assault on Moscow. Slot efficiency is an interesting way to look at units and I think it adds to the game; if there is too much inflation of core slots, then that will disappear.

Another example: the 8-rad recons become available in '41, but cost 3 slots, which is 1 more than every other recon available to that point. Their stats are not much different than what has come before, with one crucial exception: their movement type is All Terrain, which frees them from roads and makes them viable in the mud and snow of the Russian maps to come. That's a case where I'm willing to let my slot efficiency drop (i.e. the amount of attack and defense stat per core slot spent), because the improved mobility is essential: a 2 slot recon that can never make it to any battles isn't worth much to me, while a 3 slot recon that can get where I need it is great.

If core space always increases to match the increased core cost of units, then... well, I'd argue that's a failure of the core slot design. At that point, every unit might as well cost one core slot, or you may as well be given, for example, room for 6 infantry units, 4 armor units, 2 recon units, 4 artillery units, etc.

I think AO 1941 embraced this quite well. You can use captured KV-1 and T-34 tanks, but it costs an arm and a leg at this stage of the war. It's inevitable that AO 1942 and 1943 will further increase that core slot space, but I am fine with the pace at which is happening. I'd say it's a good idea if the core slots allowed and deployment hexes on the battlefield (another way to actively limit things) are balanced towards the less expensive unit types, not the top tier ones at any given time. What you mention about room for 6 infantry units, 4 armor units, 2 recon units, 4 artillery units and so on is a valid way to look at the core slot limit if it's geared towards that medium-tier units (10.5 cm artillery, early Panzer III/IV tanks, Bf 109 fighters etc.). Anything better should feel like paying premium price.

[scorehouse]

i'm surprised no one's mentioned the additional slot requirements for Fighters. wish the game had an Aircraft General Option mirroring Panzer and Infantry General. that would help take the sting out

[scorehouse]

just stumbled upon a solution. increase the Advanced Option Allotment

[adiekmann]

However, while I'm not looking to deploy every single one of my units in most battles, I do hope we see a significant increase on average that goes beyond just dealing with the "core inflation."

What are your thoughts?

Well i hope for the same. I enjoy big battles and many enemies and big maps. And of course the ability to deploy a big core

That's my feeling too. I don't want more slots because I want to be able to field 10 Tigers at once along with a flotilla of aircraft and heavy artillery, I just want more units to deploy and am hoping that there will be some more large battles with big maps like you said.

At the same time, I shouldn't have to rely on owning 6 Zero Slot heroes to field the majority of my core. In the past several playthroughs, the game has been very stingy in awarding me Zero and Reduced Slot heroes. In the last one I only have 2 Zero and 2 Reduced Slot heroes by the end of 1941. I never used a KV-1 because it was just too slot expensive, all things considered in my situation. That's why I'd like it to be relaxed a little more than it has been so far.

[George_Parr]

In the past several playthroughs, the game has been very stingy in awarding me Zero and Reduced Slot heroes. In the last one I only have 2 Zero and 2 Reduced Slot heroes by the end of 1941.

That doesn't seem all that stingy to me. In my latest playthrough I finally got my first hero of that type shortly before Moscow
Still waiting for my first vigilant hero as well, so basically no tanks in cities...


There's definately a fine line between offering enough slots to field an army of a decent size and offering so many that you can run with too many big guns. So far I think things worked out fine, but we haven't really reached the really expensive stuff yet.

I just hope that some units gets fixed in the process as well. It's just odd when the Hetzer costs more slots than a StuG III or IV. If anything, it should be less. That was the whole point of that vehicle after all, a cheap and small tank-destroyer that can be produced in large numbers.

[Vorskl]

I just hope that some units gets fixed in the process as well. It's just odd when the Hetzer costs more slots than a StuG III or IV. If anything, it should be less. That was the whole point of that vehicle after all, a cheap and small tank-destroyer that can be produced in large numbers.

Some time ago I made a deep-dive into statistics of air units and I could not understand the logic of how unit stats were made and how they were supposed to be balanced. Just ignore and move on - PC3, maybe.

[Scrapulous]

I just hope that some units gets fixed in the process as well. It's just odd when the Hetzer costs more slots than a StuG III or IV. If anything, it should be less. That was the whole point of that vehicle after all, a cheap and small tank-destroyer that can be produced in large numbers.

Some time ago I made a deep-dive into statistics of air units and I could not understand the logic of how unit stats were made and how they were supposed to be balanced. Just ignore and move on - PC3, maybe.

Another option is that we could build a units file with the stats changes that seem right to us and release it as a mod.

[Tassadar]

I just hope that some units gets fixed in the process as well. It's just odd when the Hetzer costs more slots than a StuG III or IV. If anything, it should be less. That was the whole point of that vehicle after all, a cheap and small tank-destroyer that can be produced in large numbers.

Some time ago I made a deep-dive into statistics of air units and I could not understand the logic of how unit stats were made and how they were supposed to be balanced. Just ignore and move on - PC3, maybe.

Another option is that we could build a units file with the stats changes that seem right to us and release it as a mod.

I did start an attempt at something like that here with the idea of making changes I feel are logical for myself, but that's quickly showed to be quite an ambitious idea, both with the AAR's I do and an suddenly increased amount of real life duties. I'm not dropping the concept however, and think about adding to this at times when I've got some more time on my hands. That said, if we want to thinks of such group efforts, why not use that thread if anyone is interested? I'm happy to update the leading post file with any good modifications made to the latest copy of that csv (or add them myself to that file after listing suggestions).

[makoto14]

i wish core slots would change more with your performance, like after bagration in the original campaign. If you do well in a battle or stop a attach you should get more, if things aren't going well slots should go down. it should be more dynamic than at the beginning of this battle you will always have X slots and the next battle will always be X+Y slots. Like it would be interesting to weight a situation where i might lose this core unit in this battle but if i can get this last victory objective it would help prevent me from losing slots type of scenario. Right now its always go slow and safe and make sure you finish before the timer runs out. I really liked bagration because it made you agressivly defend the initial front line to get the extra core slots in the north instead of immediately turtling in the last eastern city behind the rivers and building up entrenchment.

[BaronVonKrieg]

i wish core slots would change more with your performance, like after bagration in the original campaign. If you do well in a battle or stop a attach you should get more, if things aren't going well slots should go down. it should be more dynamic than at the beginning of this battle you will always have X slots and the next battle will always be X+Y slots. Like it would be interesting to weight a situation where i might lose this core unit in this battle but if i can get this last victory objective it would help prevent me from losing slots type of scenario. Right now its always go slow and safe and make sure you finish before the timer runs out. I really liked bagration because it made you agressivly defend the initial front line to get the extra core slots in the north instead of immediately turtling in the last eastern city behind the rivers and building up entrenchment.

+1

[Bee1976]

If you do well in a battle or stop a attach you should get more, if things aren't going well slots should go down.

I would love more coreslots. But i disagree to the reduce of coreslots. That would make the game even harder. If things arent going well a further punishment would feel bad. But i agree that an increase of coreslots would ne a reward.
The easiest way to achieve this would be "spend cp on coreslots" events.

[dalfrede]

. . . If you do well in a battle or stop a attach you should get more, if things aren't going well slots should go down. . . .

This is the opposite of what the Devs want, where the game gets steadily harder for lessor players and easier for the better players.
It's called the snowball effect.

PzC1 used the SoftCap to prevent the better players from fielding overwhelming armies.
The Slot system is an attempt for the same result, but with a more open, more easily understood system.