Great job, it does capture the spirit of the original game. Some things I would change:
I think artillery and aa are too good. This reduces the effects of air and tanks, which I don't believe to be historical. I would make artillery (generally) worse against tanks. I would make aa worse against tanks and i would not allow either unit to fire after moving. In the old pg, tanks and stukas ruled. In this game, it's all about artillery and level air (for me anyway).
In the old pg, level air was useless against units, except it hurt their supply, and when hitting an objective hex, would subtract prestige. I think this is the best use for them, in Panzer Corps, they are too much like tac air.
I would also make tac air better against ground units.
In fact, I'm tempted to try a game with no stukas. By the end of the my campaign they were useless, and artillery was better for the whole war. Factor in bad weather and artillery really wins out.
I think a good mix of corps units in this game would be about 1/2 artillery, a couple inf., several tanks, and some level air and fighters. I point this out because it is not historical.
A blitzkrieg should outrun artillery very quickly!
I would like to see destroyed units leave a hulk for a few seconds, sometimes hard to tell if they died or retreated out of sight.
I would like corps units/aux units be easier to tell apart.
Anti tank units are too powerful attacking. They were static defense. A towed antitank unit (like the German 88) should not be able to move and then destroy a tank (which I did several times).
I noticed many unit balance issues. Of course this is somewhat subjective, but here are the biggest issues:
1. Library says the m18 antitank was the fastest armored unit (60mph). Ok, so why does it have movement of only 6? that isn't much faster than a tiger II (5), which was quite slow. I would slow down the Maus, Tiger II, Elephant, etc. I would also speed up the m18. Also, no way a tiger II should be as fast as a panther.
2. The p47n has an air attack of 27? That's 10 better than the P51D, widely considered the best US fighter!
3. The Hurricane II is WAY overpowered, much better than the best Spitfires in this game.
4. The B29 should have much better air defense.
5. The elephant tank is overpowered on the attack.
6. The TA152 was an improved FW190D9. So why is it much cheaper?
7. The He162 was a cheap fighter made of pure wood. It would have been quite ineffective.
8. The DO335 was a fighter, not a Tac Air unit.
9. B17's should be the same speed (f and g), the B29 faster.
There are more, but I will stop, it's late.
Fun game, I think with some tweaks, it's a winner for sure.
Thanx for the opportunity
dave
Just finished my first campaign. My thoughts
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
I don't disagree on any particular point. In fact I wholeheartedly agree on several.
1/2 core artillery is a bit extreme though, did you really manage to beat the three USA scenarios with that much artillery? USA Midwest should have given you troubles. Otherwise I agree with your core composition. A few inf, a bunch of tanks, a few artillery guns, and round out the rest with level bombers and fighters. All other classes are near useless in campaign play (thankfully not so in multiplayer, except the tac bomber is a failure in every game mode)
For the record, there was a variant of the Do335 Arrow that was a fighter-bomber, but I agree, it was best known as a fighter.
1/2 core artillery is a bit extreme though, did you really manage to beat the three USA scenarios with that much artillery? USA Midwest should have given you troubles. Otherwise I agree with your core composition. A few inf, a bunch of tanks, a few artillery guns, and round out the rest with level bombers and fighters. All other classes are near useless in campaign play (thankfully not so in multiplayer, except the tac bomber is a failure in every game mode)
For the record, there was a variant of the Do335 Arrow that was a fighter-bomber, but I agree, it was best known as a fighter.
-
apanzerfan
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:11 pm
And it is a game, with alternative historic scenario`s or even plain fantasy ones...And no machine ever saw real action ...
Tim van der Moer - CEO The Lordz Games Studio
http://www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
http://www.panzer-corps.com
http://www.commander-games.com
http://www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
http://www.panzer-corps.com
http://www.commander-games.com
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
My 3 main points to agree on
* AA are too good versus tanks. They shoudl only have a good AT ability if switched to a ground defence roll. When aiming at the sky I fail to see how they can do much damage to me!
* Artillery do seem a bit too effective especially against hard targets. As Artillery get defensive fire on all adjacent attacks they get loads of shots and each can be devastating. I find it very hard to attack anythign with artillery support so teh only solution is to kill the artillery first. Its always teh best thing to do. Artillery in defensive fire mode shodl be less effective so that attacking untis with support is tough but not impossible.
* Tac bombers become useless later in the war. This is a big issue. We need Tac bombers to be effective against late war tanks - not as good as early war but you shoudl be doing 1-2 damage. The air defence values of the late war tansk all need to be reduced for balance reasons. To compensate I would give all units at least some air attack - e.g. 1 points so the aircraft have a chance to be damaged too.
* AA are too good versus tanks. They shoudl only have a good AT ability if switched to a ground defence roll. When aiming at the sky I fail to see how they can do much damage to me!
* Artillery do seem a bit too effective especially against hard targets. As Artillery get defensive fire on all adjacent attacks they get loads of shots and each can be devastating. I find it very hard to attack anythign with artillery support so teh only solution is to kill the artillery first. Its always teh best thing to do. Artillery in defensive fire mode shodl be less effective so that attacking untis with support is tough but not impossible.
* Tac bombers become useless later in the war. This is a big issue. We need Tac bombers to be effective against late war tanks - not as good as early war but you shoudl be doing 1-2 damage. The air defence values of the late war tansk all need to be reduced for balance reasons. To compensate I would give all units at least some air attack - e.g. 1 points so the aircraft have a chance to be damaged too.
I had some time to do a little research concerning aircraft:
The hurricane II was actually a fighter bomber - so it is way overrated.
@ Kerensky - yes the 262 kills the hurricane II, but that is like comparing WWI biplanes to the Me109 - it should completely dominate the plane - my issue was the hurricane II vs the spitfire and other late model allied aircraft that should outclass it in combat.
The he177 was a failure.
I think the anti air attack of the me110 is exaggerated as well. In fact, I'm thinking my next game, instead of stukas make some 110's, then as the war progresses, they can be upgraded to fw190's. If you only fight Russians, you may be able to avoid ANY fighter production! Interested to hear opinions on this strategy.
I would like to see the Russians get the P39, they had quite a few and used them with some success.
The Me109K should have a longer range.
The problem with tac bombers could be addressed by the late war aircraft capabilities. Some examples.
The Ju87 G had 2 37mm cannon - quite effective!
The Typhoon MkIB was a devastating anti tank and shipping aircraft due to rockets. Other planes like the P47 were fitted this way and very successful as well. In fact, the Battle of the Bulge attack was launched in poor weather due the the fact that allied aircraft had made it impossible for German tanks to advance.
The HS 129 had a 75 mm cannon for anti tank duties.
The hurricane II was actually a fighter bomber - so it is way overrated.
@ Kerensky - yes the 262 kills the hurricane II, but that is like comparing WWI biplanes to the Me109 - it should completely dominate the plane - my issue was the hurricane II vs the spitfire and other late model allied aircraft that should outclass it in combat.
The he177 was a failure.
I think the anti air attack of the me110 is exaggerated as well. In fact, I'm thinking my next game, instead of stukas make some 110's, then as the war progresses, they can be upgraded to fw190's. If you only fight Russians, you may be able to avoid ANY fighter production! Interested to hear opinions on this strategy.
I would like to see the Russians get the P39, they had quite a few and used them with some success.
The Me109K should have a longer range.
The problem with tac bombers could be addressed by the late war aircraft capabilities. Some examples.
The Ju87 G had 2 37mm cannon - quite effective!
The Typhoon MkIB was a devastating anti tank and shipping aircraft due to rockets. Other planes like the P47 were fitted this way and very successful as well. In fact, the Battle of the Bulge attack was launched in poor weather due the the fact that allied aircraft had made it impossible for German tanks to advance.
The HS 129 had a 75 mm cannon for anti tank duties.
I'm afraid I lost. I did not play late war against the allies, and lost the Dnieper battle so bad that there was nothing left to defend Berlin. I did a lot of experimenting, making mistakes, and my corp composition was not what I recommended in the post. I had used the old PG1 lineup and finished the war with a bunch of almost useless air units and infantry.Kerensky wrote:
1/2 core artillery is a bit extreme though, did you really manage to beat the three USA scenarios with that much artillery? USA Midwest should have given you troubles. Otherwise I agree with your core composition. A few inf, a bunch of tanks, a few artillery guns, and round out the rest with level bombers and fighters. All other classes are near useless in campaign play (thankfully not so in multiplayer, except the tac bomber is a failure in every game mode)
Problem was, I was able to keep from losing any units (up until Dnieper), so that kept me from adjusting to the game on the fly do to lack of corps slots. I did however, start towards the mucho artillery vein. In pg1 you had to have pioneers to dig out infantry in cities, so I still had a bunch of them as well. Now, I'm thinking, artillery to suppress the city, hit with a tank, another artillery to suppress again, another tank. Rinse, wash, repeat - no need for infantry.
I'm thinking my next game (unless an update changes things) I won't need any infantry after France. No Stukas ever, just build a few me110's and upgrade later to fw190's. Maybe a couple anti tank units so I will have some experience when it's time to upgrade to elephants. The rest - artillery and tanks. I don't think this is the way the game SHOULD be, but it is still in Beta, so we will see.
Last edited by dave123 on Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you are speaking of towed anti tank guns like the German 88, then I disagree.Razz1 wrote:Actually AT's were very effective in attack during WW2.
They were immobile, offered no crew protection, etc. Ok when dug in on defense, but no good moving around hunting down tanks.
Mobile anti tank units like the Elephant, are a different can of worms entirely.
Several documents reveal otherwise.
They moved AT's to the rear and side of tanks to know them out. This included the 88mm.
The Germans always planned a fighting withdrawal to lead the Russians into a trap. It is well documented that the Germans let the Russian advanced well into their lines just so they could use these tactics.
After 42 they built mainly AT's, Stug's, Hetzers to fight a defensive war via counter attacks. The AT's counter attacked, hence were used offensively by out flanking.
They moved AT's to the rear and side of tanks to know them out. This included the 88mm.
The Germans always planned a fighting withdrawal to lead the Russians into a trap. It is well documented that the Germans let the Russian advanced well into their lines just so they could use these tactics.
After 42 they built mainly AT's, Stug's, Hetzers to fight a defensive war via counter attacks. The AT's counter attacked, hence were used offensively by out flanking.
Razz1 wrote:Several documents reveal otherwise.
They moved AT's to the rear and side of tanks to know them out. This included the 88mm.
The Germans always planned a fighting withdrawal to lead the Russians into a trap. It is well documented that the Germans let the Russian advanced well into their lines just so they could use these tactics.
After 42 they built mainly AT's, Stug's, Hetzers to fight a defensive war via counter attacks. The AT's counter attacked, hence were used offensively by out flanking.
Early in the war, the small anti tank guns were easier for the crews to manipulate. Later, as they got bigger and heavier - not so much. And if the Germans are letting the Russians penetrate to ambush them with towed anti tank guns, then they would be firing from their fixed camouflaged positions (I would think).
One other point: if towed anti tanks were so good, why go to the much much more expensive mobile ones?
Perhaps we can agree to disagree.
Actually, in Panzer Corps, you don't need either (on defense) just build aa guns
I challenge anyone here to play a multiplayer game with me, specifically one of the specially balanced 10 MP maps (Bersaglieri and the Bear, and War Games are true 1 attacker 1 defender style maps) and spam AD units as the defender.uran21 wrote:This was an excellent point. So it will be changed.
I think we need to see these theories in action before we make rash balance changes.
The problem you are describing is one similar to the air balance issue. Early war units near universally have very low defense values, so AD units with relatively low attack values (boosted by incredibly high initiative ratings, this is the ACTUAL problem by the way) are extremely powerful.
3.7 FlaK is only 6 HA, and it has 9 initative.
PZ IVD has 6 GD, but only 5 initiative.
QF 3 inch is a 10 HA, and it has a 8 initative.
Cruiser 4 has 6 GD, but only 6 initative.
Here I'll make a little mock up so you can understand better.
Pain, utter pain. This is what people are talking about, and rightly complaining about. Look in the combat log, and you'll understand the AD unit has awesome initiative that allows it to fire first, and it's very deadly with its attack, which preempts the tank's ability to even return fire. Even though kill is at a high of 63% for the IVD, unsuppressed strength is at a '4'.
This is what initiative changes, and why mass attack is a game changer.
With enough initiative difference, now look what happens. None of those surrounding Germans units have fired or attacked to soften up the AD gun, I merely use them to change initiative, as an alternative to going into equipment.pzdat and manually changing initiative.
Extremely high initiative is the real culprit behind AD units being overpowered. Which is why in late war, when tanks like the Panther and Tiger have upwards of 10 initiative, AD units plummet in effectiveness, despite the fact their HA values actually go up.
Ideally this is how AD units should behave:
Average to high attack values, high initiative, low defense.
HOWEVER, when an AD unit is in its air defense role (not switched to ATG mode like an 88 can) it should receive an initiative cap, similar to how terrain and bad weather 'cap' initiative. Why? Because the gunners and their guns are pointing at the sky. To change their gun and ammunition to a state to fight a ground assault takes precious time, so a severe initiative penalty makes perfect sense. The end result is that a ground unit, when attacking an AD unit in it's AD mode, gains 'first strike' (The second picture is what 'first strike' will do against an AD unit, the result is devastating against the low GD of an AD unit)
HOWEVER, when an AD unit is in its anti-tank role, the initiative cap is lifted and they become deadly to ground forces, except now the air defense unit cannot defend itself from air attack (Air attack value drops to 0, not even a bracketed value, OR the initiative gap is now granted when the AD unit tries to defend itself from air attack, basically giving the attacking air unit 'first strike')
I really like that idea of AA and AD unit initiatives depend on the current switch position.Average to high attack values, high initiative, low defense.
HOWEVER, when an AD unit is in its air defense role (not switched to ATG mode like an 88 can) it should receive an initiative cap, similar to how terrain and bad weather 'cap' initiative. Why? Because the gunners and their guns are pointing at the sky. To change their gun and ammunition to a state to fight a ground assault takes precious time, so a severe initiative penalty makes perfect sense. The end result is that a ground unit, when attacking an AD unit in it's AD mode, gains 'first strike' (The second picture is what 'first strike' will do against an AD unit, the result is devastating against the low GD of an AD unit)
HOWEVER, when an AD unit is in its anti-tank role, the initiative cap is lifted and they become deadly to ground forces, except now the air defense unit cannot defend itself from air attack (Air attack value drops to 0, not even a bracketed value, OR the initiative gap is now granted when the AD unit tries to defend itself from air attack, basically giving the attacking air unit 'first strike')