Slitherine

I've just been poking around with the new Beta.

I will comment more fully in a few days once I have a chance to explore it fully.

Meanwhile however my 4th "first impression" could be summed up with 2 words:




Kursk.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kursk was the greatest tank battle of WW2 and the decisive last major German offensive in the east. After Kursk, the initiative lay wholly with the USSR, beginning a series of Soviet offensives that would end in the ruins of Berlin. [...]the German armoured thrusts into the immensely deep Soviet defenses that turned the area into a gigantic killing-ground.

In PG I got the sense that immense armored forces were concentrated at my disposal for a desperate slogging match against immense soviet forces arrayed in depth in multiple lines of defense around Kursk upon which the whole fate of the war revolved.








In PzC the feeling I got was 2 random group of tanks were launching another vanilla offensive against a few vanilla entrenched units supported by a slightly larger number of tanks than in previous scenarios occupying a small meaningless saliant.








In Beta 3 I wept in silence when 2 of my favorite scenarios were either slashed (Balkans->Greece) or removed from the game altogether (Crete) but I had to comment on my favorite PG scenario.

The map is smaller (25,35) vs (25,40) but more importantly the actual area to be fought over is much smaller (on column 16-17 the saliant measures 15 hexes from north to south, instead of 25 hexes in the original) meaning there's less room to maneuver and the map is less detailed. While geographically it doesn't suffer nearly as much as maps with recognizable coastlines like Norway and Sealion suffered, we still lost the multiple lines of defense which defined the Kursk battle.

From 43 core units in the original the PzC version has 31, without even an empty space to buy a new one. Aux units dropped even further - from nearly 40 to a bare 10. Some 1800 aircraft had been assembled by the Luftwaffe to support the offensive, representing 2/3rds of the aircraft in the east, including bomber KGs and the first massing of Schlachtgeschwader (ground attack units) and yet the airforce is represented by 3 fighters and 1 stuka??? The northern force doesn't even get it's own ground attack assets?




Again this is only my personal opinion but I'll restate my earlier view that I think you are making a mistake with a smaller campaign than the original. Instead of a sequal Panzer Corp is shaping up to be PG-lite which, given that PG was already a lite wargame, will IMO dissapoint many PG fans.

Smaller cores and fewer auxiluaries mean less variety, less taking units because they look cool, less experimentation hence replayability. Smaller maps look less representative of the terrain their supposed to model, and also bork the scale of the game. Maps are smaller but units movement values remain constant (assuming the 7 movement for the Panther is a mistake?) meaning it becomes easier to shift assets from 1 side of the map to another meaning the scenarios become less about fore thought, objective orientated battlegroups and using maneuver to achive concentration and instead just throwing your units at wherever the enemy happens to be.

A better approach IMO would have been to make each scenario ~20%-30% larger than the original, possibly changing the orientation making the maps that more detailed and, for the PG vets allowing them to experiement with larger core forces than they're used to for a given scenario instead of bringing them to tears with smaller core forces.

For Kursk specifically you could either have either increased the salient to 35-40 hexes tall and added another defensive line to slog through OR alternatively kept the saliant the same and modeled the Soviet offensives to the north around Orel and the south around Belgorod as part of the battle so players would have to attempt to gain Kursk while watching their back.



Again I'm not saying make the basic campaign much more elaborate than the original, I'm saying make it different in a good way by giving the players more options, not less. Again IMO you don't need to simplify the campaign below that of the original to cater to new players BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE A SIX(6!) SCENARIO TUTORIAL to ease them in.

I have same feelings, but after so much work you guys put already in this game, i think it would be almost impossible to enlarge maps etc

Hey boredatwork!

Thanks for a detailed and emotional message. I understand your disappointment, and although I know this is probably unavoidable when you are trying to make a sequel to a truly classic game, I'm still upset about this. I think, I should at least try to explain our position and why we are doing what we are doing.

Of course, I would prefer to satisfy all people with out-of-the-box game experience. It has been decided that we'll ship the editor with the game on day one, so we can expect that any problems with the stock campaign will be fixed in no time. Still, ideally even this step should not be needed. You grab the game, and it is already perfect. Alas, from the very beginning it was clear that, no matter what approach to map size we choose, some people would be disappointed. For some players scenarios like Moscow are all-time favorites because of their epic feeling, while for others they are the most boring of all, because they require to move a lot of units across huge distances, with little action happening in the process.

So, why smaller maps? I won't deny that we were under some pressure from the powers-that-be, and because of that Poland started as a scen with 70 axis units (ok, it was too many), then we struggled for a long time to keep two fronts there, and finally we arrived at the version you see in the game. Also, I want to stress that we always considered it important to bring together PG-like gameplay with Slitherine's server-assisted multiplayer, which should be a perfect match. But in multiplayer mode smaller maps and shorter battles usually work batter than big ones.

But these are not the only reasons. Looks at these two maps from the original PG:





Warsaw map is very small, but it is full of details, every piece of the map is carefully designed. Compared to that, Moscow looks much more "rough", with huge empty areas and equally huge forests; it has only a couple more rivers. If you compare two maps side by side, it seems that the amount of important terrain details in the maps is about the same. But Moscow is larger. Where you move across empty space in one turn in Warsaw, you move two turns in Moscow. Where you need to move only one unit in Warsaw, you now have 2-3. So, you need to do more routine work. But you do not get more game to play, because, as I said, the number of important terrain features which determine map structure is about the same. And for this reason, it was not all that difficult to transfer units from one battle group to another in Low Countries, France, Barbarossa or Moscow. If you needed it, you could do it.

On the other hand, if we added more details to Moscow map, filled that big map with rivers, swamps, forests, hills etc., it would quickly become unmanageable mess of terrain patches. Indeed, it would become VERY important to plan all battle ahead, but complexity of battles would become MUCH greater than in PG.

So, what we tried to do in PzC is preserve PG battle complexity, but at the same time reduce the amount of scrolling, moving and other routine work which the player needs to do. For example, Poland scenario in PG was very lightweight (15x15=225 hexes), but even this scen was in fact very deep, with a lot of tactical nuances dictated by its terrain, placement of cities etc. So, we felt that on a map like 40x40=1600 hexes you should have more than enough possibilities to make an interesting, challenging battle. We did not see a need to go larger than that. 50x50 map is already 2500 hexes, while you only gain 10 hexes on each side (20% gain).

Additional argument for us was that smaller battles are faster to play, and this means that within the same time limits you can do more test rounds and ultimately balance them better. And finally, let's not forget that huge maps often require a lot of auxiliary units, but many people prefer to play with their beloved core, not arbitrary auxiliaries placed at will of the scenario designer.

So, this is why we made the decision in favor of smaller maps. What do we lose with this approach? At the very least, we lose some epic feeling. I don't really think that 30 core units is so few that you can not experiment with core composition and try different approaches. The balance between primary unit branches - infantry, tanks, artillery, fighters, bombers - is as important as ever, and every player will strive to find his own perfect proportions. Also, like in PG, different players will have different preferences regarding less important classes. Some will play with 1-2 recons, SPATs and strategtic bombers, while others will ignore these classes. So, I don't see a huge difference here. But it is clear that 30 units feel less epic than 40 or 50 you could have in PG. I agree that it is a disadvantage, but in our opinion, the arguments described above outweigh it.

Once again, I'm not trying to persuade you. All people loved different aspects in PG, and I'm sorry we cannot meet all expectations. Fortunately, in PzC you at least have the editor and open data formats which means you can create an almost perfect copy of PG, including its scenarios and campaign, unit parameters and even game rules. Or you can create an even bigger campaign, and I expect that such campaigns will appear shortly after release.

PS. Do not count off Crete yet. It is not included yet because it is really a side branch that does not effect the structure of the campaign, so we considered it lower priority and put it off till the end. But it is an interesting scen with special feeling about it, so it would be nice to have it. We shall see if we can make it...

I've come to the conclusion that are making the campaign fit their needs and that convincing them otherwise is a fruitless endeavor.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, I think they realized that it's impossible for them to make something that will please everyone (Too many chefs ruin the soup) so they're just going to make something that suits their agenda. As Rudankort said, their agenda might include items such as: smaller maps short battles for multiplayer, trying to reach a broader and more 'casual' player base, et cetera.

Personally, I find it disappointing. The solution is obvious (Release multiple types of campaigns with the stock game) but that is a lot more work for little benefit. Why use more of their time and resources trying (and probably failing because it really is impossible to please everyone) to make everyone happy, when they can just release the editor and let people make exactly what they want to make themselves? And so that's what they've decided to do.

So other than a few nit picks, I don't think it's worth trying to significantly change their plans for the single player campaigns.

Speaking of nit picks though, I do have one.
Every single unit in every single scenario is a zero experience zero star 10 strength unit. Any plans to adjust this? It makes a world of difference when starting in 1939 or 1941 because when your 1939 core reaches 1941, they are significantly stronger than your stock 1941 core but still fighting the same opponents your stock 1941 core faces.
Personally I would like to see an adaptable system, but that's just me.

Basically what I mean by adaptable is:
Game takes the average experience of your entire core and gives that much experience to every enemy unit within X and Y variation.
X is negative integer and is a larger negative number in easier difficulties, and Y is a positive integer that is small in easy difficulty and large in higher difficulties.
The end result is if you play on easy difficulty, and most of your core is 1 star, most of your enemy will be 0 or 1 star.
If you play on impossible difficulty, and most of your core is 3 stars, most of your enemies will be 3-4 stars, with a rare 2 star and occasional 5 star.

It's a system that satisfies every type of player by keeping the level of game play at a competitive level for the respective player. A newbie could reach the end of 1939 campaign with a core of 1-3 star units, and still be facing enemies that are not too weak and not too strong at the end of the campaign, and the veteran player with a full core of 5 star 15s will face an enemy he won't just steamroll over time and time again.

Kerensky wrote: Personally, I find it disappointing. The solution is obvious (Release multiple types of campaigns with the stock game) but that is a lot more work for little benefit. Why use more of their time and resources trying (and probably failing because it really is impossible to please everyone) to make everyone happy, when they can just release the editor and let people make exactly what they want to make themselves? And so that's what they've decided to do.

For the record, I have nothing against multiple campaigns with the stock game, but this does not mean that making them all in parallel and releasing as one huge package is the best way. On one hand, it would make the project much more complex and can delay the game a lot. For example, I would need to support several scenario designers in parallel, and I don't have so much time for that. On the other hand, some people can be confused by many options (which campaign shall I play?) or frustrated by the fact that they should pay for what they don't need. I think, it is much safer to release additional campaigns as patches/add-ons etc., probably a bit later than the game itself. For this reason we are now concentrating on a single campaign, and when we are done with it, we'll see where to move next. "Panzer Corps Grognard edition" is not impossible, but of course no promises at this point either.

In any case, it is true that making everybody happy is an impossible task. I think, my PG remake (PG Forever) was as faithful as it gets, and still, some people were not satisfied and preferred the original version. So, it will come as no particular surprise that many people will not accept PzC.

Kerensky wrote: Basically what I mean by adaptable is:
Game takes the average experience of your entire core and gives that much experience to every enemy unit within X and Y variation.
X is negative integer and is a larger negative number in easier difficulties, and Y is a positive integer that is small in easy difficulty and large in higher difficulties.
The end result is if you play on easy difficulty, and most of your core is 1 star, most of your enemy will be 0 or 1 star.
If you play on impossible difficulty, and most of your core is 3 stars, most of your enemies will be 3-4 stars, with a rare 2 star and occasional 5 star.

I'll have to think of this. It may feel wrong in some places (like when you arrive in USSR in 1941 with your hardened experienced veterans, in theory you should not face elite 5-star soviet units). Also, this might devaluate the concept of experience altogether. If you always face an equal enemy, what is the point of gaining experience at all? But for game balance this should be very useful, that's for sure.

BTW, I plan to change the behavior of the experience slider so that it effects all experience you ever gain in the game. So, setting it to 0% will effectively turn experience off. This way you can get pretty much the same as you've described above.

Rudankort wrote:I'll have to think of this. It may feel wrong in some places (like when you arrive in USSR in 1941 with your hardened experienced veterans, in theory you should not face elite 5-star soviet units). Also, this might devaluate the concept of experience altogether. If you always face an equal enemy, what is the point of gaining experience at all? But for game balance this should be very useful, that's for sure.

BTW, I plan to change the behavior of the experience slider so that it effects all experience you ever gain in the game. So, setting it to 0% will effectively turn experience off. This way you can get pretty much the same as you've described above.

More than happy to debunk your concerns.

Feels 'wrong' in some places:
I would say it feels 'wrong' in any possible battle against Soviet VS German forces. Almost universally, the Germans faced superior numbers of inferior quality.
The strength of an adaptable campaign is just that, it is adaptable. To better reflect the reality of Soviet VS German engagements, you (the game) can change your base integers. Increase the negative value of X, decrease the value of Y, depending on what scenario you're on. Barbarossa for example may have an extreme X and a minimal Y to reflect historical accuracy. Your end result will be Soviet units will typically lag behind their German opponents in experience instead of being evenly matched. Add in your prestige numbers, and you can have your historically accurate Soviet hordes that are balanced for good game play.

If you always face an equal enemy, why have experience at all:
That's comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about balancing your force against your enemy's force. You're talking about balancing your own force against itself. If you don't have experience at all, then your veteran tank unit from Poland will be equal to one you just bought in the middle of Kursk campaign. So you have experience that separates your veteran unit from your new unit, that's why you have experience.

With regards to balancing your force against your enemy, you are not always fighting an equal enemy. Your enemy will have variable experience. Some will have same experience as you. Some will be 1 star less. Some may actually be 1 star higher than your average. Are you going to tell me a 3 Star T-34/41 is equal to a 3 Star Tiger I? Absolutely not, equipment matters and makes the enemy very much not your equal. However a 3 star T-34/41 will stand up slightly better to a 3 star Tiger I than a 0 star T-34/41, which would just be fodder.

Not all of your tanks will be 3 stars. You might have one 5 star, a few 4s, many 3s, a couple 2s, and a new 1. The majority of the enemy would be 3s (your force average), with a good numbers of twos(X variable effect), and possibly a few fours(Y variable effect). That is a pretty significant unit variation of allied and enemy units, and completely different from a level playing field where instead of all enemy units are averaged at 3 stars, every single unit, allied and enemy, has 0 experience, wouldn't you agree?

This system may hurt brand new units, but that's why the X variable is for. If you buy a fresh new unit, you're going to have to baby it for a while as it gains experience. Finding good targets for it to gain experience on, assisting it with mass attack, avoiding enemy units that were boosted by a strong Y variable, et cetera.
Additionally beyond experience, not every single unit will be at 10 strength either. Most of your enemy will be from 10-13 in the example I used above, and often a 3 star will not be 13 strength. Obviously a unit cannot have more strength than normally allowed by experience. So if the majority of your enemies who are 'rolled' to be 3 star units, maybe 30% will be 10s, 30% will be 11, 25% will be 12, and 15% will be 13. This should also help relieve the problem of brand new player core units being too far behind the core average strength.

Now that I've debunked your concerns, I will remind you that you have still not answered my initial question.
Every single unit in every single scenario is a zero experience zero star 10 strength unit. Any plans to adjust this?

Kerensky wrote: The strength of an adaptable campaign is just that, it is adaptable. To better reflect the reality of Soviet VS German engagements, you can change your base integers. Increase the negative value of X, decrease the value of Y. Your end result will be Soviet units will typically lag behind their German opponents in experience instead of being evenly matched. Add in your prestige numbers, and you can have your historically accurate Soviet hordes that are balanced for good game play.

I agree that this problem is actually easy to solve. You can always keep desired difference in your exp and enemy exp.

Kerensky wrote: If you always face an equal enemy, why have experience at all:
<skip>

What you said (and I skipped in the quote) is all correct, but how does it contradict my statement? It is clear that experience can diffirentiate the units in your core, ok. And of course, the differences in equipment are all there. But all experience bonuses, and also combat formulas are additive. Absolute values of experience do not matter, only the difference between attacker and defender is important. 5-star tiger against 3-star T-34 will get exactly the same results as 3-star tiger against 1-star T-34. So, with your proposed scheme, in average the battle will play exactly the same in case you get to it with 0-star or 5-star units, because average exp difference between your units and enemy units will always be the same, and this means the same combat results. I would say probably 0-star is even better because then your newly-purchased units will be immediately competitive, and replacing inexperienced units is cheaper. Then what is the point of gaining experience? You will be interested to get as little as possible. And this means always green replacements, disband-purchase etc. to keep your average exp low. Am I missing anything?

Kerensky wrote: Now that I've debunked your concerns, I will remind you that you have still not answered my initial question.
Every single unit in every single scenario is a zero experience zero star 10 strength unit. Any plans to adjust this?

Sorry, missed that. Yes, we do plan to improve this aspect.

Rudankort wrote:Thanks for a detailed and emotional message. I understand your disappointment, and although I know this is probably unavoidable when you are trying to make a sequel to a truly classic game, I'm still upset about this. I think, I should at least try to explain our position and why we are doing what we are doing.

Once again, I'm not trying to persuade you. All people loved different aspects in PG, and I'm sorry we cannot meet all expectations. Fortunately, in PzC you at least have the editor and open data formats which means you can create an almost perfect copy of PG, including its scenarios and campaign, unit parameters and even game rules. Or you can create an even bigger campaign, and I expect that such campaigns will appear shortly after release.

Thank you for your response. Please don't misunderstand me I'm not QQing because I expect you to cater to my desires exclusively (in which case that 70 unit poland scenario seems like a great place to start!). As long as the editor works and the core rules are functional the game will be adequate for me.

I know that if you ask 10 people you would probably get 10 different answers as to what they wanted in a campaign, and it would be an impossible job for you to satisfy everyone's expectations. I fully accept there is a % of your potential market for which your campaign is the ideal solution.

What I did want to do however was state my opinion as unambiguously as possible (and hopefully other Beta testers will do the same) so that IF PzC ships with a small campaign it is because you (and the powers that be) are confident that it is what a significant portion of your market wants, as confirmed by playtesting as opposed to shipping it because you assume that is what you think your market should want.

There's nothing wrong with attempting to appeal to the "casual" market - however the original PG was already targetted to that market (it was based on a console game!) - is simplifying it further really what the market wants? During the 90s I got a half dozen friends who had never touched a wargame in their life playing PG and they loved it. So I just have doubts that simplifying an already casual game is the way to go.

Rudankort wrote:Also, I want to stress that we always considered it important to bring together PG-like gameplay with Slitherine's server-assisted multiplayer, which should be a perfect match. But in multiplayer mode smaller maps and shorter battles usually work batter than big ones.

The alternative is to make the campaign scenarios for the campaign only and then go back and make some smaller scenarios specifically for multiplayer. Yes it involves more work to create more scenario content, but FAR LESS work to balance compared to trying to make a scenario playable in both multiplayer while keeping it challenging during a campaign.

Warsaw map is very small, but it is full of details, every piece of the map is carefully designed. Compared to that, Moscow looks much more "rough", with huge empty areas and equally huge forests; it has only a couple more rivers. If you compare two maps side by side, it seems that the amount of important terrain details in the maps is about the same. But Moscow is larger. Where you move across empty space in one turn in Warsaw, you move two turns in Moscow. Where you need to move only one unit in Warsaw, you now have 2-3. So, you need to do more routine work. But you do not get more game to play, because, as I said, the number of important terrain features which determine map structure is about the same. And for this reason, it was not all that difficult to transfer units from one battle group to another in Low Countries, France, Barbarossa or Moscow. If you needed it, you could do it.

Here I dissagree with you. First I'm not arguing that being bigger automatically makes a scenario better. Second Moscow is a very different scenario and the space is part of what makes it a unique challenge. To dismiss the extra space and extra units as "routine work" without "more game to play" is like saying "Why would anyone eat an orange instead of an apple because peeling the former takes much more work for the same amount of fruit."

Warsaw: Terrain limits maneuver; Battle devolves into a frontal assault on 3 fortified cities; Max speed/fuel irrelavent because neither is tested during the battle; size of battle leaves little room for surprises; transport for infantry is largely irrelavent;

Moscow: With freedom and space to maneuver battles are more fluid, less predictable from game to game; plenty of scope for surprise (T-34s popping out of nowhere and attacking your halftracks, new enemy aircraft appearing far from your fighters,etc; 4 defensive lines instead of 1 means additional challenge of marshalling forces for attacks on defensives lines after an advance instead of only at the start; Fuel and Max speed are very important - those tigers may be powerfull but given how far it is to Moscow and how frequently you'll have to refuel you'll be hard pressed to maintain the speed of your advance; there is a huge difference between leg/truck/ht movement; you have choice where to assault a city - you can attack it directly or you can bypass it by concentrating on a weaker spot, break through, and attack it from the rear, etc.

On the other hand, if we added more details to Moscow map, filled that big map with rivers, swamps, forests, hills etc., it would quickly become unmanageable mess of terrain patches. Indeed, it would become VERY important to plan all battle ahead, but complexity of battles would become MUCH greater than in PG.

I wouldn't think Moscow needs necessarilly more major features - just a bit of artwork variety in "clear" terrain. I would make it 10-15 hexes taller then rescale the map to push Moscow closer to the easter edge, possibly rotating the map slightly to make it "feel" different from PGs. Another 3 or 4 core units - nothing much - just something so the PG vet feels like he's getting more than what he had before.

Again while I don't think scenarios should follow the originals too closely, the original map sizes and complexity weren't IMO an issue with PG. The primary issue was the problem of Core balance on the later scenarios of the campaign. Making the map bigger or smaller doesn't do anything to change that.

I will post a further response later to the balance discussion which is hijacking my thread!

boredatwork wrote: I know that if you ask 10 people you would probably get 10 different answers as to what they wanted in a campaign, and it would be an impossible job for you to satisfy everyone's expectations. I fully accept there is a % of your potential market for which your campaign is the ideal solution.

What I did want to do however was state my opinion as unambiguously as possible (and hopefully other Beta testers will do the same) so that IF PzC ships with a small campaign it is because you (and the powers that be) are confident that it is what a significant portion of your market wants, as confirmed by playtesting as opposed to shipping it because you assume that is what you think your market should want.

There's nothing wrong with attempting to appeal to the "casual" market - however the original PG was already targetted to that market (it was based on a console game!) - is simplifying it further really what the market wants? During the 90s I got a half dozen friends who had never touched a wargame in their life playing PG and they loved it. So I just have doubts that simplifying an already casual game is the way to go.

Fair enough. I also would love to know the answer for sure.

boredatwork wrote: The alternative is to make the campaign scenarios for the campaign only and then go back and make some smaller scenarios specifically for multiplayer. Yes it involves more work to create more scenario content, but FAR LESS work to balance compared to trying to make a scenario playable in both multiplayer while keeping it challenging during a campaign.

It is true, but people want to play famous historical battles, don't they, and the fact that you can reuse existing maps and scens is important. Balancing scenario for multiplayer may involve just a few parameters - turn count, prestige, maybe some part of unit deployment, but it is not the same as do the scen from scratch.

boredatwork wrote: Here I dissagree with you. First I'm not arguing that being bigger automatically makes a scenario better. Second Moscow is a very different scenario and the space is part of what makes it a unique challenge. To dismiss the extra space and extra units as "routine work" without "more game to play" is like saying "Why would anyone eat an orange instead of an apple because peeling the former takes much more work for the same amount of fruit."

I didn't doubt you wouldn't agree, I think it is the very essense of our disagreement. Still, I think that fruit analogies only bring us further from understanding the problem. When I say "you don't have more game to play", I mean this. If you move two tigers in a group and kill two T-34 on the way, it is exactly the same gameplay as if you would move one tiger and kill one T-34. You don't lose anything (except perhaps the epic feeling) if you average this and make the game smaller. (But epic feeling is not an absolute value. Nobody would want 5 million units to move around. )

Now if you need to move your two tigers along different paths and solve different tactical tasks, this would be different. You cannot split one unit, so my simplification approach will not work. But lets face it. "Big" battles in PG meant simply that you need to kill more units with more units of your own. It was not about more battle groups and more complex strategy. In many big scens you could just move across the map with a broad front, consuming all units on your way. Yes, even Moscow played like this. This is what I was trying to illustrate by comparing Warsaw and Moscow maps. I know that these battles were different. But there were also important similarities which I tried to point out. In Warsaw you need to cross one river to get to Modlin and one river to get to Siedice. In Moscow you need to cross one river to get to Moscow and one river to get to Tula! Do you think it is normal for a map which is almost 10 (!) times bigger?

I agree that big maps has certain implications which you have points out, in particular speed difference and fuel becomes more important. But our maps are not THAT small (check Stalingrad for example), and some things can also be balanced in unit stats. You guys have already pointed out that units had too much spotting, and I think in the last version we tweaked that. In PG you had planes with spotting=5 and a lot of movement. You could reveal HUGE portions of the map with them. In PzC you don't have anything like that, so even on smaller maps you can expect "T-34 popping out of nowhere" etc. We may need to do the same with fuel and movement, we shall see. A lot of balancing work is still ahead.

To sum it up once again, I think that size and complexity of a scenario are two very different matters. We want to preserve PG's complexity of battles, because this is what ultimately determines enjoyment from the game. So, I don't agree that in this respect PzC is a step back and more "casual" than PG.

Having said all that, although redoing Kursk in 2x bigger size and with 2x more units is probably not an option at this point (because the size of the core effects all scens in the campaign, not just one scen), I have nothing against tweaking it - changing terrain, maybe adding one more line of defense, adding some more auxiliary units. This battle MAY need this because it has several separate fronts, and so, as I said above, simplification and averaging of units may not work so well here. You can even make your own version of Kursk and post it here - then we can see what people think about it.

boredatwork wrote: Again while I don't think scenarios should follow the originals too closely, the original map sizes and complexity weren't IMO an issue with PG. The primary issue was the problem of Core balance on the later scenarios of the campaign. Making the map bigger or smaller doesn't do anything to change that.

I certainly agree. Campaign balance is a separate topic, but it is very important, and I closely watch out for any suggestions in this area from you guys. When all scenarios are finished, a large-scale balancing work will begin. This is the point when all of your ideas will be very useful.

I haven't played Kursk yet.
But I agree this is what should make Panzer Corps different than PG

"With freedom and space to maneuver battles are more fluid, less predictable from game to game; plenty of scope for surprise"

If this can be achieved with a smaller map that is fine. I do remember the non functional movement aspect just to get to the battlefield. March, March, March.

However, if the scenario was set up where you had to retreat, then you would use the extra size of the map. Battlefield would then be fluid.


Also, have you stepped back and consider making the starting units experience 1/3rd or 1/2 of what you have achieved over the campaign?

It's good to hear you are looking at starting OOB experience for the AI.

Sorry to hijack the thread, it's a related topic at least though!

Rudankort wrote:What you said (and I skipped in the quote) is all correct, but how does it contradict my statement? It is clear that experience can diffirentiate the units in your core, ok. And of course, the differences in equipment are all there. But all experience bonuses, and also combat formulas are additive. Absolute values of experience do not matter, only the difference between attacker and defender is important. 5-star tiger against 3-star T-34 will get exactly the same results as 3-star tiger against 1-star T-34. So, with your proposed scheme, in average the battle will play exactly the same in case you get to it with 0-star or 5-star units, because average exp difference between your units and enemy units will always be the same, and this means the same combat results. I would say probably 0-star is even better because then your newly-purchased units will be immediately competitive, and replacing inexperienced units is cheaper. Then what is the point of gaining experience? You will be interested to get as little as possible. And this means always green replacements, disband-purchase etc. to keep your average exp low. Am I missing anything?

That could be a negative play style that could result from this system, but I see that as just shooting yourself in the foot. If your enemies will scale to match your strength, wouldn't you want to be as strong as you can? The ability for a 5 star 15 strength unit to withstand punishment and survive should be greater than a 0 star 10 strength unit against an equally experienced opponent. 15>10. I think you're reading into the word 'average' too much. You seem to be under the impression that it will be a great equalizer, and that every single unit might as well not have experience. The only response I have to that is you have to keep in mind that even if your average is three, that means the majority of the battle will be fought by units between 2 and 4 stars, on both sides. For every two 3 star vs 3 star battles, you will have a 2 star vs 3 star conflict or a 4 star vs a 3 star or some variation therein.

If and when the player reaches 5 star 15 core, then the enemy will never be stronger or more experienced than the player, they will either be equal to or weaker than the player's core. If a player attempts to limit their strength as much as possible, then his enemy will always be equal to or possibly stronger than his force in experience. That sounds like strong encouragement NOT to deliberately understrength and keep your force as weak as possible, no?

Once you get to scenario and campaign balancing, we should revisit this issue. I just don't see the benefit of going into each and every single scenario and manually setting the experience and strength value of every single unit to achieve a sort of 'balance' when you could just set a few global variables and apply them to every enemy unit. Not to mention trying to balance these same scenarios when you're looking at the difference in a player's core if they start in 1939 and reach 1941, or just start fresh in 1941. Think of it as the game automatically balancing itself, based on the difficulty level and success (or failings) of the player between every single scenario. Not only is it a smarter and more flexible game, it's easier to do than going through every single unit one at a time individually.

Rudankort wrote:Sorry, missed that. Yes, we do plan to improve this aspect.

As long as this is on the table, whether you use an adaptable campaign or not, is satisfactory to me.

Kerensky wrote: That could be a negative play style that could result from this system, but I see that as just shooting yourself in the foot. If your enemies will scale to match your strength, wouldn't you want to be as strong as you can? The ability for a 5 star 15 strength unit to withstand punishment and survive should be greater than a 0 star 10 strength unit against an equally experienced opponent. 15>10. I think you're reading into the word 'average' too much. You seem to be under the impression that it will be a great equalizer, and that every single unit might as well not have experience. The only response I have to that is you have to keep in mind that even if your average is three, that means the majority of the battle will be fought by units between 2 and 4 stars, on both sides. For every two 3 star vs 3 star battles, you will have a 2 star vs 3 star conflict or a 4 star vs a 3 star or some variation therein.

You are a stubborn fellow, aren't you? If you don't believe in averages, let us consider a specific example. Let's say you have 3 units - A, B and C. Enemy has D, E and F. Consider these two situations.

1.
A - 1 star
B - 2 stars
C - 3 stars

average=2

Enemy:
D - 3 star
E - 2 star
F - 1 star

Let's calc exp difference for all possible combinations of these units.
AxD=-2
AxE=-1
AxF=0
BxD=-1
BxE=0
BxF=1
CxD=0
CxE=1
CxF=2

2.
A - 3 star
B - 4 stars
C - 5 stars

Now your core is stronger, isn't it? average=4

Enemy:
D - 5 star
E - 4 star
F - 3 star

Again, let's calc exp difference for all possible combinations of these units.
AxD=-2
AxE=-1
AxF=0
BxD=-1
BxE=0
BxF=1
CxD=0
CxE=1
CxF=2

We have seen this somewhere, haven't we?

So I'll state it once again: with the system you propose in ALL combats exp difference between you and your opponent does not depend on experience level you have. This means that we effectively destroy any bonuses given by experience. Frankly, I think that this scheme is deeply flawed. Experience is supposed to be a huge advantage, but here suddenly it does not give you anything at all.

And now you say - but we have overstrength! Yeah, we have it. But:
- You will really benefit of it only by the end of the campaign.
- Before that you will have to give your units expensive elite replacements again and again, and overstrength itself is very expensive. Between scenarios green replacements are free, while for overstrength you pay the price of a new unit. In the middle of the battle overstrength is 8 times more expensive. Just imagine how much you can save.
- Overstrength is not all that useful on its own. Without experience bonus (which is a complex bonus to attack, defense and initiative) you will still take a lot of casualties and can very easily lose your overstrength. And you cannot even restore it in the middle of the scen, because it takes several turns.

Kerensky wrote: Once you get to scenario and campaign balancing, we should revisit this issue. I just don't see the benefit of going into each and every single scenario and manually setting the experience and strength value of every single unit to achieve a sort of 'balance' when you could just set a few global variables and apply them to every enemy unit. Not to mention trying to balance these same scenarios when you're looking at the difference in a player's core if they start in 1939 and reach 1941, or just start fresh in 1941. Think of it as the game automatically balancing itself, based on the difficulty level and success (or failings) of the player between every single scenario. Not only is it a smarter and more flexible game, it's easier to do than going through every single unit one at a time individually.

I find the idea of automatic balancing very attractive, but not when it kills important game concepts and promotes dirty playing style. What you propose might work if, for example, 70% of enemy force have fixed experience (not zero, but always the same), and 30% - experience derived from the average of your core, as we discussed above. Then you no longer can maintain crappy core, because you still need to deal with 70%, but no matter how experienced you are, your elite units will have some hard nuts to crack (30%). And the more experience you get, the easier it becomes to deal with 70%, so it still makes a lot of sense to invest into elite experienced units, probably with overstrength on top.

Rudankort wrote:You are a stubborn fellow, aren't you? If you don't believe in averages, let us consider a specific example. Let's say you have 3 units - A, B and C. Enemy has D, E and F. Consider these two situations.

I prefer to think of myself as passionate. Plus I have a lot of time on my hands.

Rudankort wrote:lolmath

Well shit... now that's just no fun to debate anymore when you break out with the raw numbers. However you still seem to be sidelining the strength of my X and Y variables, so I see your numbers, and I raise you graphs.

First we have the German units:
24 units
1 0s = 0
4 1s = 4
7 2s = 14
8 3s = 24
3 4s = 12
1 5 = 5
59 total stars experience
Average 2.458333


Now let’s create the allied units:
24 units
1 0s 0
3 1s 3
8 2s 16
8 3s 24
3 4s 12
1 5s 5
Average 2.5
Your graph seems to look like this:

This is what you’re saying, because you can move the apex of the graph in either direction, but you’re going to get similar matching results, right?. There is slight variation when rolling the average, but it almost perfectly cancels out, hence you say: what’s the point of experience at all in this format.

To which I say, X and Y variables do this:
Let’s say the player is playing on easy mode. X= -250 experience (-2.5 stars) Y = 50 experience (+.5) stars.
Now apply that to the allied forces. Basically for every unit, the game will roll 1-300 (absolute distance from X to Y). The baseline is 0 which is also the average, a roll of 250 will put a unit at 2.5 stars(X+250 = 0, and 0 means 2.5 stars), which is your average. A roll of 1 will put a unit at 1 experience. A roll of 275 will put a unit at 275 experience (X + 275= 25, so 25 experience above your average) A roll of 300 will put your unit at 300 experience (X+300=50, 50 above your average of 250, so 300).
In this example, our numbers happen to match perfectly. If the German player did not have the 0 experience unit, you would see an appropriate shift.
So let me roll 24 units.
I’ll use
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dice/dice.htm
and put 300 into the last slot and roll it 24 times.
My results are
40 87 197 61 215
70 200 45 195 164
172 184 172 171 86
295 234 140 298 28
104 170 207 101
These are the experience values for the allied units. Let’s plug them into the graph.
I see 40, 87, 61, 45, 70, 28, 86 units are going to be 0 stars.
I see 197 195 164 172 184 172 171 140 104 170 101 are going to be 1 stars.
I see 215 200 295 234 298 207 are going to be 2 stars.
I see no 3 stars.
So 7 0 stars
11 1 stars
6 2 stars

EDIT: Noticed a mistake, 3, 4, and 5 should not be at 1, they should be at 0
Expand the number of allied units to the appropriate number on the map, be sure to apply the variance to all allied units purchased during the scenario, and congratulations, you just balanced allied experience levels for that scenario for the player playing on Easy Difficulty.
Now to do Normal. X = -200 Y=100 We shifted our range by 50.
Now do Hard. X= -100 Y= 200. We shifted our range by 100 more.
Now do Impossible. X =-50 Y= 300. We shifted our range by 150.

If you're fighting Russians, you may shift your scale more in the X direction and away from Y, but generally give Russian AI more prestige. Once the system is set up, finding the right balance, on a country by country and scenario by scenario basis, will only take play testing and prestige balancing. This system has the added bonus of expanded replay. Every time you play the campaign, it's going to be a little different. That unexpected 3 star 13 infantry unit that put up a hell of a fight for a VH won't be there very time you play through the campaign. The hope for the average is that even if that 3 star 13 becomes a 0 star 10 on your next play through, the law of averages should compensate by giving the player another strong 3/13 unit to fight somewhere else where that unit may previously have been a 0 star 10, assuming the player enters the same scenario with an approximately equal force as he did last time. See what I did there, I took your faith in averages and made it my friend. Take that!

Now you have a system where the AI will not necessarily have to rely on producing enormous amounts of units to match a player’s constantly expanding and strengthening core. Instead, you have a system that, on the harder difficulties, may force the player to encounter superior forces. Now you can’t steamroll your way to victory, if you want to combat your enemy, brute force will no longer work. You have to play smart, and use your equipment to its fullest advantage. That means using artillery to soften targets before your infantry goes in, using bombers to soften armor before sending your own armor in, et cetera.

Currently, the game just spawns masses of junk in your path and you just steamroll over it. In this new system, AI prestige will probably be lowered to balance out the fact that their individual units will be a lot tougher and put up a better fight.

Rudankort wrote:I find the idea of automatic balancing very attractive, but not when it kills important game concepts and promotes dirty playing style. What you propose might work if, for example, 70% of enemy force have fixed experience (not zero, but always the same), and 30% - experience derived from the average of your core, as we discussed above. Then you no longer can maintain crappy core, because you still need to deal with 70%, but no matter how experienced you are, your elite units will have some hard nuts to crack (30%). And the more experience you get, the easier it becomes to deal with 70%, so it still makes a lot of sense to invest into elite experienced units, probably with overstrength on top.

This is a compromise I'll be willing to accept, but don't think that doesn't mean I'm not going to fight to reverse that 30%/70% into 70%/30% if not an even higher ratio. Some specific units on VHes should be immune to this modification, it could make the game too easy or too hard, but I would say the vast majority of the enemy units should be subjected to alternation and rebalancing.

Let's try a real example.
EDIT: Oops, I made a mistake, it's fixed now.

1941 campaign starts with german core 26 units
Let’s start them all at 0 experience.
Player chooses hard difficulty.
26 0 stars units
Average is 0
X = -100
Y= 200
Shift because Allied player = Soviet
X = -150
Y = 150
So for every Soviet unit, we /random 300.
Any roll 150 and under means the soviet unit has 0 experience.
Any roll between 151-300 means the soviet unit has 1-150 experience.
1/6 of all Soviet units should be 1 star(those who rolled between 251 and 300), although some they may gain a star after a single round of combat.
That sounds pretty balanced to me, considering a player just started a brand new campaign with a fresh and inexperienced core on hard mode.

Now I’ll use a real core I brought from 1939 just entering Barbarossa
The fact I have 5515 prestige(didn’t cheat) is going to be a balance issue, but that’s not what we’re balancing here.
I have
3 zero stars = 0
7 one stars = 7
4 two stars = 8
9 three stars = 27
3 four stars = 12
0 five stars = 0
Total stars, 54.
Divide by 26 units, average is 2.07
Hard mode =
X = -100
Y= 200
Shift because Allied player = Soviet
X = -150
Y = 150

Our base (average) is 2 stars, or 200 (rounded for example simplicity).
Our formula is Base (200)+ X(-150)+roll(random 1-300)
Why is this the formula? Because any roll = or > 150 will have 200 or more experience, any unit that rolls < 150 will have less than 200 experience.
Russian units that roll between 1 and 49 will be 0 stars. These units will fall between 50 and 99 experience.
Russian units that roll between 50 and 149 will be 1 star. These units will fall between 100 and 199 experience.
Russian units that roll between 150 and 249 will be 2 stars. These units will fall between 200 and 299 experience.
Russian units that roll between 250 and 300 will be 3 stars. These units will fall between 300 and 350 experience.
47 total Russian units.
Dice rolling time
13,92,162,192,7,
88,232,41,191,220,
57,193,34,299,2,
6,14,224,267,78,
71,225,113,39,40,
1,173,182,89,252,
246,102,48,132,167,
296,88,252,245,65,
176,20,159,187,266
,162,108
I see 12 between 1 and 49
13 between 50 and 149
16 between 150 and 249
5 between 250 and 300
Graphin’ time.

Statistically speaking, I got pretty lucky, the amount of 0s should be nearly equal to the amount of 3s (odds of 1-49 should be as common as 250-300) so this will be easier than what you should expect.
Still, that definitely look like 'hard' mode to me. Considering my prestige reserve, plus the superior quality of German units over Russian units (except armor), this should be a hard battle, but not impossible. Perhaps a little too hard, Y may have to be reduced, maybe the range should be x=-150 to y=100, or the range should be x= -200 to y= 100, maybe that's not enough, but keep in mind this is 'hard mode'. That changes a lot, it's now /roll 250, but the end result is you should see less units above the average, and more below. How simple is that to tweak and re-balance though? All I did was change one value, and the game applied my change to an entire scenario.
I turned your 'large scale balancing work' into two variables and one formula.
There may be a slight exaggeration in that statement.

I'll tell you what though. The AI won't need a bottomless prestige pile and endless hordes of junk units to be able to put up a fight against the player now, that much should be certain.

Does that graph look anything like just making all units zero experience? Such a system may need some safeguards. For example, if too many units get 'lucky' and roll between 250 and 300 (say half or 24), then the game should cap the amount of units allowed to have this much experience (Let's say the cap is 1/5th of the total amount of Russian units, roughly 9 units right?). If 9 already roll 250 and above, the others would be forced to re-roll until they roll less than 250.

My question to you now is this: If you don't use this system, how would you balance the Barbarossa scenario, considering it can be both a campaign start point or a scenario visited after Poland, possibly Norway, Low Countries, France, possibly Sea Lion, and possibly Greece?
Additionally, would your system have more replay value than this system of altering enemy experience and strength levels(within balanced limitations of X and Y) or would your enemy be exactly the same on every play through of the campaign, the only difference being what core the player brings along and what purchase decisions the AI chooses to make?

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Tim aka LZ

lordzimoa wrote:Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

You just had to one-upped this thread's current trend of fruit analogies, didn't you?
Well played. Well played.

I could not resist.... LOL

BTW If you have time we could use some help with draft texts for tutorial and intro`s for campaigns and such, maybe even for the manual... Are you interested?

Absolutely.

Ok I speak with the guys, how we can set this up, I come back to this.

BTW We really appreciate all the feedback...

Kerensky
I really appreciate your efforts, but may I ask you to try to formulate your thoughts more clearly and concisely? Pleeeeeese. I struggled through your graphs and numbers only to find that, once again, you didn't say anything which would contradict my own statements. I did not forget about X and Y values, in fact, in my example they were -100 and 100 respectively (that is why the enemy units got different star ratings), and if you use any different values, you will get the same result. Because all they do is shift the average of enemy's experience, but it still remains directly connected to your own experience.

I hate to repeat the same again and again, but I'll do this one last time. I don't argue that your formula has a lot of balancing power. But I won't implement it because it devaluates experience and can be exploited.
- It devaluates experience, because having more experience in the same battle does not make it easier for you. Hopefully you won't argue with this, because this is exactly what you are trying to achieve. It is probably ok to do this in some battles (e. g. in Berlin we can say the soviets have similar exp to you, because they have been fighting you for 5 years), but not in all battles throughout the campaign.
- It can be exploited, because enemy exp depends on an arbitrary parameter - the average of your units. I don't want to read an "expert advice" like this some day: "the optimal core composition is 5 elite 5-star 15-strength units and 25 green 0-star units. Then the average of your units is 83, so less than 1 star, and most enemy units will have 0 stars. Your elite units will deal with them easily, and remaining 25 units can be used on less difficult parts of the map".

And let us not mix apples and oranges. More replayability would result from any experience randomization scheme, not just the one you defend here. If I set average exp of enemy units to 2 and variance to 2, you will still get a lot of surprises, but enemy exp will remain disconnected from your own exp, and so my two complains above would not apply. So, this sounds like a good thing to implement.

To answer your question,

Kerensky wrote:My question to you now is this: If you don't use this system, how would you balance the Barbarossa scenario, considering it can be both a campaign start point or a scenario visited after Poland, possibly Norway, Low Countries, France, possibly Sea Lion, and possibly Greece?
Additionally, would your system have more replay value than this system of altering enemy experience and strength levels(within balanced limitations of X and Y) or would your enemy be exactly the same on every play through of the campaign, the only difference being what core the player brings along and what purchase decisions the AI chooses to make?

Barbarossa is not the best example here, because in that battle numerous but inexperienced and unprepared soviet units were facing well-prepared and experienced enemy. So I don't think we'll use experience to balance this scen. Soviets will have little (zero?) experience. For more replayability we may want to look at other parameters - number and strength of soviet units, their initial deployment. As for general solution, I don't have a ready answer now, because I did not think all that much about this. Perhaps the right way, as I said, would be to combine your approach with fixed experience (where by fixed I mean that average is fixed, but specific units can get variable exp), and exact percentage of units to which we apply one of these two approaches will change from scenario to scenario. So in Barbarossa all soviet units have fixed experience, in Berlin their exp is derived from yours, and in between these two scens percentage changes proportionally. So, the war in the east would start easy, but if you fail to finish off the soviets quickly, it will become tougher and tougher all the time.