Slitherine

In no particular order:

Strategic map terrain looks fine. Though there is a problem when you mouse scroll the zoom out...the units spread out but the map does not change scale. Some units off map.

The interface seems fine, but I'm not in love with always right clicking...left clicking feels more natural

The Soviet air units are not visible sometimes when land units are selected. This leads to many mistakes.

The enemy attacks are still very hard to follow. This is frustrating.

Also, for balancing the first scenario of the invasion of Russia, there are WAY too many Soviet air units. It feels entirely wrong for the Soviets to have air superiority. Despite purchasing several BF109's, I couldn't kill them fast enough and they were KILLING me. I think you should assume that German surprise air strikes decimated them prior to starting the scenario.
For that matter, the Soviets in your scenario were way too prepared for my attack, with alot of armor and effective artillery. I think that this scenario should feel much more like a German romp through alot of weak infantry with a few weak, ineffective tanks.

I also noticed the soviet air stacking issue, they aren't invisible, just not aligned to sit above the unit. Added to bug thread.

It seems to me the first Soviet Scenario is balanced with the idea that you started a campaign from Poland 1939. I entered the scenario with an airforce of SIX 2-3 star 109s, and a single 4 star Stuka. I was really surprised by the amount of Soviet aircraft, but the fact that I could kill 7-10 with each 109, they really drop like flies. The bigger problem was me was the complete flood of high quality soviet AA units. After I swept the skys, my air force was paralyzed by 2 85MM AA units per VH. But that's okay, because I already learned the AI floods the field with AD units, hence my 1 single stuka and mass fighter swarm with no other tactical or level bombers.
The worst adversary I had to overcome was how fast my units kept running out of ammunition steamrolling floods of 0 star units popping up all over the place, heh.

I checked the editor, and I was surprised. The only two AD units the soviets have are the 85MM 3 range monster and a T-90 SPAAG. On a related note, Russian armor seems to have a few holes. KV-85, T-44, IS-1, for starters. KV-2 doesn't quite look right either, but I'll talk about these units elsewhere.

I can't imagine starting from with the 1941 campaign though, with only three no star 109s.

gdrover wrote: The interface seems fine, but I'm not in love with always right clicking...left clicking feels more natural

OK, I count your vote in favor of the old scheme.

gdrover wrote: The enemy attacks are still very hard to follow. This is frustrating.

I haven't quite got to map effects and animations yet, but I will very soon. This aspect could use a separate thread I guess.

gdrover wrote: Also, for balancing the first scenario of the invasion of Russia, there are WAY too many Soviet air units. It feels entirely wrong for the Soviets to have air superiority. Despite purchasing several BF109's, I couldn't kill them fast enough and they were KILLING me. I think you should assume that German surprise air strikes decimated them prior to starting the scenario.
For that matter, the Soviets in your scenario were way too prepared for my attack, with alot of armor and effective artillery. I think that this scenario should feel much more like a German romp through alot of weak infantry with a few weak, ineffective tanks.

We'll think how to make this scen feeling more right. On one hand the soviets were disorganized and unprepared in thiws battle, on the other hand, they did lose quite some tanks in this battle, so reducing it all to "alot of weak infantry with a few weak, ineffective tanks" will not be right either. Perhaps it would be a good idea to split units into smaller ones, so that they are easy prey for concentrated attack and still numerous enough. Also, probably the soviets should get less prestige (or none at all) on the first few turns, and only then start getting more of it. Any other ideas are welcome.

Kerensky wrote: It seems to me the first Soviet Scenario is balanced with the idea that you started a campaign from Poland 1939. I entered the scenario with an airforce of SIX 2-3 star 109s, and a single 4 star Stuka. I was really surprised by the amount of Soviet aircraft, but the fact that I could kill 7-10 with each 109, they really drop like flies. The bigger problem was me was the complete flood of high quality soviet AA units. After I swept the skys, my air force was paralyzed by 2 85MM AA units per VH. But that's okay, because I already learned the AI floods the field with AD units, hence my 1 single stuka and mass fighter swarm with no other tactical or level bombers.
The worst adversary I had to overcome was how fast my units kept running out of ammunition steamrolling floods of 0 star units popping up all over the place, heh.

Now I see why you want full resupply.

Kerensky wrote: I checked the editor, and I was surprised. The only two AD units the soviets have are the 85MM 3 range monster and a T-90 SPAAG. On a related note, Russian armor seems to have a few holes. KV-85, T-44, IS-1, for starters. KV-2 doesn't quite look right either, but I'll talk about these units elsewhere.

Well, producing 3D models for units is quite a big task, so our approach was to skip some less used units. How many KV-85 and IS-1 tanks were there?

Kerensky wrote: I can't imagine starting from with the 1941 campaign though, with only three no star 109s.

I guess it is the first sign that the campaign is not well balanced yet.

It may be better for a separate thread for discussion, but I'll just start here and see what other people think and how you devs feel.

Rudankort wrote:We'll think how to make this scen feeling more right. On one hand the soviets were disorganized and unprepared in thiws battle, on the other hand, they did lose quite some tanks in this battle, so reducing it all to "alot of weak infantry with a few weak, ineffective tanks" will not be right either. Perhaps it would be a good idea to split units into smaller ones, so that they are easy prey for concentrated attack and still numerous enough. Also, probably the soviets should get less prestige (or none at all) on the first few turns, and only then start getting more of it. Any other ideas are welcome.

You know what I would do? I would change the fundamental mechanics of the scenario. Barbarossa was a phenomenal success because it was a surprise attack. The Germans weren't fighting poorly trained infantry and obsolete aircraft, they were fighting sleeping poorly trained units and grounded obsolete aircraft.

Taken from wikipedia, but I can cite other sources if necessary.

Luftwaffe reconnaissance units worked frantically to plot troop concentration, supply dumps, and airfields, and mark them for destruction. The Luftwaffe's task was to neutralize the Soviet Air Force. This was not achieved in the first days of operations, despite the Soviets having concentrated aircraft in huge groups on the permanent airfields rather than dispersing them on field landing strips, making them ideal targets. The Luftwaffe claimed to have destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of operations.[75] Hermann Göring — Chief of the Luftwaffe — distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Picking through the wreckages of Soviet airfields, the Luftwaffe's figures proved conservative, as over 2,000 destroyed Soviet aircraft were found.[75] The Luftwaffe lost 35 aircraft on the first day of combat. The Germans claimed to have destroyed only 3,100 Soviet aircraft in the first three days. In fact Soviet losses were far higher: some 3,922 Soviet machines had been lost (according to Russian Historian Viktor Kulikov).[76] The Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority over all three sectors of the front, and would maintain it until the close of the year.[77] The Luftwaffe could now devote large numbers of its Geschwader (see Luftwaffe Organization) to support the ground forces.

Just straight reading that text, it says 2,000 aircraft littered the airfields, with a total of 3,100 destroyed. That means, 2/3 of all Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground where they were completely helpless in the opening days of Barbarossa. Or 1/2 if you take the numbers by the Russian historian.

Right now, I can already see PzC is suffering from the same problems as previous Panzer General titles. Once you struggle through the first initial scenarios, all the following scenarios become the exact same thing. Steamroll your elite units over all opposition in your path. Your main adversaries become weather, supply, and time. Adding to this problem, the AI for every nation is identical, further compounding the problem of every offensive scenario is a carbon copy of the last one.

One infantry unit sits on the VH. Two artillery guns, two anti-tank guns, and two air defense units surround the single infantry unit. All non-VH city hexes are either empty, or contain a single infantry unit. The only armor and air force the player encounters are the ones the map designer manually added to the map.

In France, they were 25mm SA 34 ATG, 155mm C mle 1917 artillery, and 25mm CA mle 39 AD units.
In Russia, they are 45mm M1937 ATG, 155mm M1938 artillery, and 85mm M1939 AD units.
I could show you a screenshot, but is it really necessary?

Even if the AI becomes more advanced, and random elements are added to the map, it's still the same thing. Repeat one offensive steamroll after another. Randomize out some ATG and AD and RNG in a few tanks, assault guns, and fighters.

What would I do with Panzer Corp campaign?
Well for example, I would flood Barbarossa with Russian units, just like it was historically. The German air force would be outnumbered, but the Russian player would also be paralyzed for X amount of turns. What does that mean? It means he can't move his air forces off of his airfields, and if they are attacked by air units, they do not defend themselves. Same with ground units, they all move at 1/2 speed and fight at 1/2 strength and receive 2x casualties. For the sake of balance, the amount of experience and prestige gained by the German player during the few turns of 'paralysis' would have to be lowered.

The objective of Barbarossa? Destroy as many Russian units as possible before the paralysis wears off, in addition to capturing Minsk and perhaps a few other VHes. If all the German player does is rush straight to the VH and take them. They win a marginal victory. Even if they turn on cheats and take all the VH in the first turn, I'd still give them a marginal victory. A full decisive victory requires capture of all the VH before turn Y, but also destruction of Z% of all Russian units. Now the game becomes a careful balancing act, full of risk and reward. Does the player have the skill and resources to split his forces just enough to inflict the maximum amount of casualties while the Russian is 'paralyzed', but still manage to take the VHes in a decisive amount of time? If he spends too much energy hunting down Russians everywhere, he won't capture the VHes in time. If he rushes straight for the VHes and ignored paralyzed units, there will be hell to pay when all those Russian units 'wake up'

If you give me the right tools, a little support (and maybe a little $), hell I'll make these scenarios and campaigns for you guys. I'd be happy to do it. I'd be happy to do it IN ADDITION to a standard Panzer General-esque campaign of 'grab your elite core and steamroll your way to victory'.

One of the key items to remember is to balance PVE and PVP separately. Barbarossa in this style is almost purely a PVE game, player VS AI. In head to head play, it would be near impossible and quite impractical to try to balance a scenario with custom 'temporary' rules. So you design a scenario to specifically exist as part of a campaign, and you design other scenarios with the express intend of balanced player VS player interaction. This means sacrificing historical accuracy for game balance in the PVP scenarios, but maintaining historical accuracy at the cost of game balance in a PVE scenario.

Rudankort wrote:Now I see why you want full resupply.

Yes, but I want it as a cure to the symptom of a problem I see in the game, not as a cure for the disease that is truly responsible. The disease being your primary opponent in the game is Weather, Supply, and Time, and not your opponent.

Rudankort wrote:Well, producing 3D models for units is quite a big task, so our approach was to skip some less used units. How many KV-85 and IS-1 tanks were there?

Yes, this point was drilled home in my Art Request thread. I had a feeling you might say that bit about 'skipping less used units', and I've been formulating my counter argument since before you posted.
In terms of game play balance, speaking in terms of player VS player combat, I already pity the Russian player in late war scenarios. Why?
Well, they've got the T-34/85. Inferior to the Tiger and Panther, only slightly better than a PZ IVH.
T-34/43 and KV-1s? Outdated.
The SU-122 and ISU-152 are apparently SP Artillery units now, which means they will be terrible at killing armor and used mainly(only) for suppression.
There are the nice assault guns, SU-85, SU-100, and ISU-122, but all of these units are crippled by horrendous ammo reserves. 3 Ammo means every push of the resupply button, currently, gains the unit a single ammunition. For every turn you shoot, you need to spend an equal amounts of turns hitting the resupply button. Plus these are anti-tank units and not true tanks, which means they cannot fulfill the roles that tanks can, (their soft attacks are typically low, their close defensive is laughable).
What's left? IS-2. 3 Ammo.

So basically for armor, your Soviet player has the option of under-armored and under-gunned T-34/85s to fight Panthers and Tigers, or in 1944 and onward they have the expensive and seriously ammo deficient IS-2 to look forward to.

As for how many KV-85s there were.

KV-85 – A KV-1S with the 85 mm D-5T gun in an IS-1's turret, with the ball mounted hull machine gun removed and the hole welded shut, 148 of these tanks were produced in the second half of 1943 until the spring of 1944 as a stopgap until the IS tank series entered production.

AS for how many IS-1s, it's hard to find a good source with an exact number.
Judging from

3,854 IS-2, 2,311 IS-3, and 250 IS-4 heavy tanks were built.

I would guess the production numbers for the IS-1 were mostly like near the KV-85 amount of 148.

The bottom line is I clearly foresee a serious problem in player VS player scenarios, where the Russian player has a serious deficiency in ground unit options to counter late war German armor and assault guns. These stop gap tanks may not have been historically prominent, but they would make for better game play balance.

T-34/85 would be the cheap, flimsy option on one end of the spectrum.
KV-85 and IS-1 would be more expensive, but better protected and also slower, but have better staying power(more ammunition) than an IS-2.
IS-2 would be on the other end of the spectrum, best firepower, highest price, best armor, low staying power(terrible ammunition reserves).

I hate to say it, but should I also pull up production numbers for units such as the Jagdtiger, Tiger II, and ME-163B?

Rudankort wrote:I guess it is the first sign that the campaign is not well balanced yet.

Yes, but I think the heart of the matter is the direction and structure of the campaign rather than fixing 'how do I balance a scenario that can be played right off the bat, or after a player has fought across Europe including a successful Sea Lion?'

I'm really not keen on the air war model right now. The anti aircraft units have far too much range meaning you have to kill them before you try and use your aircraft. Its very hard to withdraw damaged units for repair as you cant protect them unless you are adjacent with your air units and they are continually being destroyed by enemy air power. It feels like air defence units shoudl have 1 hex range and fighters should have a longer intercept distance - 2-3 hexes? Only one intercept per turn though.

Air power feels too extreme -if you have air superiority. If you have it you can massacre units without air defence. I just think the whole thing needs toning down so casualty rates are more similar to artillery 1-2 max and maybe double versus transports.

Air defence units are far too good versus ground units. I sometimes find it hard to find anythign that can take them on. They should be very ineffective against ground units, especially infantry. Currently a good tactic is to build air defence units and move them steadily forawrds with artillery support and blast anything you come up against. Its very hard to atack air defence support by artillery.

The AI uses its air power very aggressively. On easy settings I think the AI needs to be much more conservative - dont pick off weakeneed units in the enemy rear areas.

Make sure the AI is only air striking units it can see - I have a feeling some of the units it attacked behind my lines were well out of range of being seen which was a bit annoying.

iainmcneil wrote:Air defence units are far too good versus ground units. I sometimes find it hard to find anythign that can take them on. They should be very ineffective against ground units, especially infantry. Currently a good tactic is to build air defence units and move them steadily forawrds with artillery support and blast anything you come up against. Its very hard to atack air defence support by artillery.

Really? Is that an offensive tactic? What good are AD units against ground units? If you're moving up slowly(not entering transport) with artillery and AD units, can you really finish scenarios in time for decisive victories? I also disagree about it being hard to attack AD supported by Artillery. The answer is tanks. Artillery cannot kill tanks quickly (1-2 tanks killed per shot) and AD units cannot attack tanks period. Between your artillery units not killing tanks fast enough, and AD units not being able to fire at tanks at all except defensively, it doesn't take too long for armor to out maneuver your AD screen and directly engage artillery. After the artillery is wiped out, you can either ignore the AD units completely or kill them off at your leisure because they are only a threat if you attack them, they can't attack on their own. They can't even retake VHes, so you really can ignore them.

Plus AD and Artillery are expensive. AD goes from 60 to 90 to 240 to 360 for 20mm to 128mm. Artillery goes from 75 to 490 for 75mm to 210mm.
Tanks start at 35 for the little PZ IA (an excellent soak off tool to deplete precious artillery ammo supply) to the 169 PZ IVE which butchers artillery or AD units in the open, so long as it's not engaging an entrenched AD unit with arty support. After the PZ IVE, the tanks have so much armor they don't even get hurt by artillery fire or even direct conflict with AD units.

Here's turn 5. Lots of AD and Artillery units with some ATGs too, my armor aren't even on the screen yet, they're a little ways to the north. You can see me happily throwing my infantry into the battle (You didn't think I was kidding about this tactic, did you? lol) to get a head start on depleting their ammo and preventing resupply, even though they're getting massacred, each time they attack they chew up 2 artillery ammo (1 support fire, 1 actual unit fire) and each time artillery uses ammo to shoot them in their turn, I only lose 1-3 infantry because artillery aren't really geared to 'kill'.
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/4319/52512938.jpg
Here's turn 9.
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/7728/47967688.jpg

Yes, that is a IVJ and a Marder III you see there, I cheated to give myself two 'command' units. That's the only cheat I used though, no money cheats or anything else like that, and honestly they didn't even do that much of the work. The Marder III with it's terrible 4 ammunition spends half it's time hitting the supply button, and the IVJ, powerful as it relatively is, only gets 1 shot per turn.

I do agree that AD units are really, REALLY strong, but that's also their weakness. Because they are so good at controlling the sky within their range of fire, it makes having a air heavy core pointless. So instead of buying 450 Stukas and 350 JU-88s, you can load up on PZ IVE at 169 a piece.
Yea, with a little RNG air power is pretty crazy against unprotected ground units. I've seen 8 strength 2 star units vaporize in a single bombing run, or even strafing attack if they happen to be in transport. But then that doesn't really bother me because all my units are cheap junk with a few exceptions. lol Considering the cost and restrictions of aircraft (range, supply rules, WEATHER) I think they need some window where they are amazing or else, why ever bother with air units?

AD units are pretty bad against infantry, if they are entrenched. If they aren't entrenched, tanks should be able to handle them, even early PZ IVD armor will probably see 3-4 3-3 or 4-3 against an AD unit in the open. That seems painful, until you realize you can throw another PZ IVD at a single AD unit after the first one at pretty much the same cost. 2 100ish units vs 1 200ish unit.

iainmcneil wrote:Make sure the AI is only air striking units it can see - I have a feeling some of the units it attacked behind my lines were well out of range of being seen which was a bit annoying.

I would blame this on the amazing scouting ranges of the majority of units in the game. The worst units start at 2 hexes, and from there it only goes up until you hit 5 that you see on pure recon units.

The point is it all feels wrong. I don't really care if there is a tactic to get past it - real tactics dont work and you want real tactics to work or people get frustrated. It needs to feel like WW2

We need a model that is fun, logical and balanced. Right now it just doesnt work for me. Air power is too extreme - either lethal or ineffective. Air defence units are impenetrable bunkers. It just all feels wrong and most new players will be very frustrated by it.

Air defence should be easily overrun by infantry unless they are something like a quad 20mm which woudl have been effective against infantry. 88mm German AA guns should be useless against infantry. Tanks might have a hard time against a 88mm gun but something like a bofors should be completely ineffective. To defend a city you are best off with a wall of air defence units support by artillery. Air units cant come near you & ground units cant really hurt you. It may be expensive but thats not the point - its fundmentally wrong

iainmcneil wrote:We need a model that is fun, logical and balanced. Right now it just doesnt work for me. Air power is too extreme - either lethal or ineffective. Air defence units are impenetrable bunkers. It just all feels wrong and most new players will be very frustrated by it.

This is pretty well said, I'm sure some tweaking and adjusting can be applied. I personally enjoy watching my units take significant casualties, at least I find it more preferable to controlling an invincible steamroller, but I can completely see how this can be frustrating and at times counter-intuitive. It's an Air Defense unit, not an 'ultimate defensive unit'.

I agree Ian. Your solution of toning down the destructive power of air seems right, as does the toning down of range for AA...Infantry hitting and hurting AA was how PG was, and it felt right. Perhaps combat bonuses for Infantry vs. AA, as well as artillery vs. non-armor in open terrain, etc.

Kerensky wrote: Yes, this point was drilled home in my Art Request thread. I had a feeling you might say that bit about 'skipping less used units', and I've been formulating my counter argument since before you posted.

We did not always excluded rare units from the list, gameplay implications were also important for us. For example, Sturmpanzer I was not a wide spread unit, but we felt that giving it to the player will be very nice to increase the number of arty options in the early game. On the other hand, it was not really an option to make all nations competitive in all areas, gameplay wise, because it would require a huge number of models, and it would not feel "right" either. In campaign game allied nations are enemies, and the player will not care about specific problems the allies face, as long as they are fun to play. As for human vs. human, you can balance almost everything using resources, time, map etc. as your tools. And let's not forget that in most scens allies are on defensive, and this is an important advantage. Besides, if soviet tanks are inferior in late war, this is not entirely unrealistic either, and we can balance the costs so that those inferior tanks are much more numerous than germans.

Kerensky wrote: Yes, but I think the heart of the matter is the direction and structure of the campaign rather than fixing 'how do I balance a scenario that can be played right off the bat, or after a player has fought across Europe including a successful Sea Lion?'

I think, campaign must be balanced so that player's core does not get significantly stronger than what you get predeployed in each scen. After all, slot number is the same, and the player shopuld not have all units with best equipment and five stars - the core should be mixed, same as predeployed units are mixed. And pre-deployed force could include some very expensive units, which the player would not buy a lot in campaign. I think, this task is feasible, but clearly we are not there yet.

gdrover wrote:I agree Ian. Your solution of toning down the destructive power of air seems right, as does the toning down of range for AA...Infantry hitting and hurting AA was how PG was, and it felt right. Perhaps combat bonuses for Infantry vs. AA, as well as artillery vs. non-armor in open terrain, etc.

I would say, the current situation with AAs is legacy from PG, where they had similar stats. But I agree that this must be fixed, and all tools for this are in place. We just need to fix a few numbers, and the balance should drift in the right direction.

I'm meeting Kresimir end of this week, and I plan to sit together with him and try to fix various issues in unit class balance. So, I expect that the next build will see some changes to the good. In the mean time, please post all points where you think the game does not feel right. This will help us a lot.

Rudankort wrote:We did not always excluded rare units from the list, gameplay implications were also important for us. For example, Sturmpanzer I was not a wide spread unit, but we felt that giving it to the player will be very nice to increase the number of arty options in the early game. On the other hand, it was not really an option to make all nations competitive in all areas, gameplay wise, because it would require a huge number of models, and it would not feel "right" either. In campaign game allied nations are enemies, and the player will not care about specific problems the allies face, as long as they are fun to play. As for human vs. human, you can balance almost everything using resources, time, map etc. as your tools. And let's not forget that in most scens allies are on defensive, and this is an important advantage. Besides, if soviet tanks are inferior in late war, this is not entirely unrealistic either, and we can balance the costs so that those inferior tanks are much more numerous than germans.

Chop the turret off of a KV-1 chassis, grab the turret on a T-34/85, make it a tiny bit larger, and paste it back on. That's essentially what the KV-85 was, same chassis with a different turret.



I implore you to add the KV-85, not just because I adored the tank. Definitely my favorite Russian tank of the war. The big turret on a little T-34-85 body never looked right to me, and the stronger and larger KV frame fits the turret in a much more aesthetically pleasing way. Plus in terms of game play, I already dread the idea of 'what high defense value unit can I use against German armor' because my the only tank option is going to be the IS-2, which is near worthless, as far as I'm concerned, because of it's pitiful ammunition supply.

Rudankort wrote:I think, campaign must be balanced so that player's core does not get significantly stronger than what you get predeployed in each scen. After all, slot number is the same, and the player shopuld not have all units with best equipment and five stars - the core should be mixed, same as predeployed units are mixed. And pre-deployed force could include some very expensive units, which the player would not buy a lot in campaign. I think, this task is feasible, but clearly we are not there yet.

This is where I strongly disagree with you, and it approaches the heart of my suggestion. If you achieve your goal of the player core not significantly altering the difficulty of a campaign depending where you start, all you succeed in doing is reducing the player's influence and control over the game. Your campaign structure would have to be designed to inhibit the player core to not exceed or fall below X and Y strength. This will probably be done through things like experience caps, prestige caps, core size caps, et cetera. Every single one of those balancing designs does the same thing, it limits the player.

I suggestion a more radical approach that allows for a greater degree of user freedom and flexibility while still maintaining well balanced (not too easy not too frustrating) game play. To put it succinctly, you need adaptable campaigns.

If you're interested in my suggestion, I can create a few scenario outlines, explain the new mechanics, draw up some diagrams and let you devs decide. I can also provide some examples of other work I've done in other games as examples. If you like it, I can start the serious work of actually turning these ideas into actual game maps. At the very least though, I'm going to need something of a basic trigger system.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily have a problem with the typical Panzer General campaign: lightweight game where you steamroll your elite core to victory. However if this is essentially what we get in the stock campaigns, I'll be disappointed purely on the basis that the idea suffers from 'been there done that'.

So think about it. I guarantee, with the right support and resources, I can make a campaign that will put the standard offensive steamrolling to shame, and be refreshing for veteran players but still approachable and enjoyable for the casual easy difficulty no supply no weather no fog crowd.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/5222/69480841.jpg

Hmm, where have I seen that defensive formation before? Oh yea, in Poland, and the Low Countries, and France, and London.

PZ IVE > Artillery, AD, and light ATG. That one pioneer would have been a problem, but he was nice enough to launch a suicide counter attack to kill one of my weakened fodder units.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4072/35974664.jpg

Still, it took 8 turns to get to Moscow, and 6 more to actually take it. Would have been faster except bad weather kept slowing me down.

Rudankort wrote:I'm meeting Kresimir end of this week, and I plan to sit together with him and try to fix various issues in unit class balance. So, I expect that the next build will see some changes to the good. In the mean time, please post all points where you think the game does not feel right. This will help us a lot.

My 2 cents:



I am NOT enjoying the campaign. As I mentioned in the 1939 Campaign, Impossible Setting thread (http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22344) units suffer far too many casualties which makes for alot of replacements and makes them too vulnerable to loss. Even playing normal I lose 1-3 core units per scenario, regardless of how experienced or otherwise they are. On harder difficulties there's no point in renaming them - they're just faceless zergli-err-soldiers suffling forward to hopefully drown the allies in their own blood before I run out of mineral-err-prestige. That defeats the purpose of having a core force - I might as well just play scenarios with premade forces.

IMO the way to core balance was not make the core more vulnerable, which has only resulted in swarm versus swarm, but rather a series of fixes which would reduce the effectiveness of core units without resorting to killing them, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness of pre-placed AI units so that it could offer a reasonably effective defense without the need to swarm:

1) I did a plug for a modified version of FG in the other thread because, IMO, So many things would benefit from changing most of the current kills to long term suppression:

- Artillery - their kills atm are actually ideal, they just need a long term suppression component - would gain purpose currently lacking by being great suppressors.
- Air Defense units would be effective at reducing damage to friendly targets by suppressing aircraft without being so overpowering that the airforce stays at home for fear of loss. If I attack a target defended by 2 AD units I might only inflict a few long term suppression or a loss of entrenchment, at the cost of 1 or 2 casualties and 8 or 9 long term suppression (requiring a trip back to an airfield to remove) but that is FAR better IMO than having the same Stuka sit uselessly on the airfield because the 4 or 5 damage done would result in guaranteed death.
- Attacked mounted units could suffer extreme disruption requiring a turn to recover without at best being reduced to a couple of vulnerable points, or at worse being 1 shotted as is easy to do now.
- Because of a VAST reduction in the number of replacements required compared to the current rules the amount of prestige required for that purpose becomes much smaller and hence more predictable, allowing for easier balance.
- Units can retain some effectiveness much longer, meaning a player spend more time fighting with them instead of clicking on replacements/buy new unit constantly.


2) use the core/aux differentiation for the allied side to allow computer opponents access to more lines worth of preset units. Ie the first line would be "core" units that both the AI and human player would have access to. The subsequent lines would be made up of aux units that were only avaialable to the AI player, and it would be restricted from moving them until german units approached. AI & Player built replacements would then be capped much lower - hopefully stopping the cheap unit spam.


3) use dynamically adjustable variables to alter strength, experience, entrenchment rates of the allied starting forces to make individual allied units competitive with the player's core forces, instead of "challenging" a player to cut through ever larger swarms depending on how good their core force is. If you're playing on easy set the allied shermans in Normandy to 1 star, 8 str. If you're playing on hard and you have 15str Panthers make those same shermans 5 star, 20 str units.



Of course before too much tylenol is consumed trying to find the perfect balance between casualties versus core development, freedom versus limits, etc - there is another possibility - if PzC isn't intended to be an E-Sport why not just give people the option to find their own balance?

Arguably the most enjoyable version of the original stock campaign was PGWin95 - the reason being you could adjust the experience and prestige of the computer opponent on the fly. I'm not sure if +3exp/+3prestige was possible in the early scenarios but certainly as you went along you could keep bumping up your difficulty to the point where your 15str/5star Panthers would take some casualties during the scenario, requiring laborious re-overstrengthing.

If Kerensky's adaptable campaign proves too difficult to implement then the simple alternative is give the players a series of global adjustable variables - allied starting experience, allied starting size, german damage done, enemy damage done, air unit damage, etc similar to Steel Panthers and let players find their own sweet spot as far as challenge/enjoyment goes on a scenario by scenario basis.

iainmcneil wrote: 88mm German AA guns should be useless against infantry. Tanks might have a hard time against a 88mm gun but something like a bofors should be completely ineffective.

Actually and uniquely the German 88 was a triple threat, Arty, AA, ATG. WITH the proper ammo for all three types. While in ROTC in college a full WW2 bird Colonel spoke to us and the most memorable part was the hate and fear of getting caught by 88's. This showed up in many veterans memoirs written in 60's and 50's.

There is no reason other than PG tradition to make 88 a separate AA or ATG, they were the same and should be Soft, Hard and AA capable, just up the price to show the value of this feature.

Easterner wrote:There is no reason other than PG tradition to make 88 a separate AA or ATG, they were the same and should be Soft, Hard and AA capable, just up the price to show the value of this feature.

I somewhat disagree - aside from the mechanics reason (you would have to change game mechanics to allow a unit to have 2 different ranges - an air range and a ground range) the guns themselves may have been the same but they were deployed in a very different fashion to accomplish the 2 roles.

In fixed AA fire the entire battery would be linked together with mechanical predictors for barrage fire. They were sited behind the lines to give good fields of fire against aircraft around important rear area targets. The vast majority of 88 units weren't practiced at mobile operations and once emplaced were *relatively* immobile.

In the AT role they were positioned well forward, usually with a shield to protect the crew from MG fire and HE fragments. If possible they were dug in and ideally camoflaged. Their effectiveness as AA units diminished as a result - further if you're trying to ambush tanks with a PaK front you probably didn't want to advertise your presence by shooting off all your ammunition at aircraft circling overhead.

In the scale of PG I would have no problem if the AA was made a truly dual purpose weapon but ONLY if it couldn't be simultaneously effective at both roles. IE during your turn you would have to chose to put your 88s in either ATG OR AA mode.

boredatwork wrote:In the scale of PG I would have no problem if the AA was made a truly dual purpose weapon but ONLY if it couldn't be simultaneously effective at both roles. IE during your turn you would have to chose to put your 88s in either ATG OR AA mode.

This is exactly what we have in mind for 88mm gun, it will be a convertible type which you can switch between FlaK and PaK mode, but it will remain in the same mode for the duration of the opponent's turn. The last of the 9 unit buttons (bottom-right one) will be used to switch unit mode.