Need a concept of availability to tone down super units

bretg80 · Post by **bretg80** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:20 pm

I've seen several discussions of cost vs firepower when discussing tigers, Me-262s, etc. During the war, these super units were available in limited supply due to parts, allied targeting, etc. The game should not impose cost restrictions or tone down capabilities, but make them more difficult to acquire, or limit the number that can be purchased. The easiest mechanism is probably to make them very expensive if you want to use existing game mechanics, but if possible, the best mechanism is to build in an availability mechanism into the system to better reflect the reality at that time.

Just a thought.

Bret

dave123 · Post by **dave123** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:59 pm

I agree with this. There are many units that will NEVER be built by most players as we all build Panthers, Tigers, Me262, ect.

For example, the Germany West Scenario, I could 18 German anti tank units, how many have you used?

This would make more diverse core armies.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:19 pm

While I do agree that 'super' units need to be toned down.

I am totally against any and all arbitrary restrictions on equipment availability.

Such measures homogenize a player's core and stamp out any possibility of deviation, successful or not.
That is a cop out to avoid balancing units and will only lead to people always maxing out their restriction.

A player should be able to dump 100% of their prestige into nothing but King Tigers, if they absolutely wanted to.
They should also not be as successful for having done so, compared to buying a well balanced force.

bretg80 · Post by **bretg80** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:54 am

Well, if you want to play something completely a-historical, then, the ability to turn off restrictions could be a way around this. However, historically, this was not feasible and since this is a game based on history, I believe the normal play mode should enforce availability restrictions. Unit capabilities should not be dumbed down to address play balance issues. If the Germans had been able to create an army of King Tigers, who knows what would have happened to the allies in real life.

Kerensky wrote:While I do agree that 'super' units need to be toned down.

I am totally against any and all arbitrary restrictions on equipment availability.

Such measures homogenize a player's core and stamp out any possibility of deviation, successful or not.
That is a cop out to avoid balancing units and will only lead to people always maxing out their restriction.

A player should be able to dump 100% of their prestige into nothing but King Tigers, if they absolutely wanted to.
They should also not be as successful for having done so, compared to buying a well balanced force.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:07 am

Personally I think limits are a good thing. It could be a limit on overall hi tech units rather than any specific type but the reality is if the Germans had been able to get all their cool stuff in to action in quantities the war would have ended differently! If we do not simulate that then we're missing something significant.

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:31 am

This has been discussed in anumber of threads but the 'best' (IMO) approach I've heard is to have an incremental increase in costs of units. There could be a field value that reflects a unit type's rarity from 0-10. When the number of units the player has bought during the game (not just currently on the map) reaches that number the next unit of that type costs more (+10%, or + an integer value as I'm not sure how well percentages would go).

A Sherman might be 10, a Jagdtiger, 2, for example. The 11th Sherman costs +10%, the 3rd JT +10% etc.

I am playing a game where my opponent has upwards of 15 SP ART units - the cheap Allied types - and a few AT guns. There's nothing 'wrong' with him doing that but there is no approximation of history there, either.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:38 am

Wow 15+? I want to try my hand at fighting this player... lol

But we're well aware of several units with incorrect prices (M7 as you noticed, among others) and it'll be addressed. Only a matter of time.

Dragoon24 · Post by **Dragoon24** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:27 pm

I think an 'easy' solution would be to lower the close defense of super tanks. I think this is historically correct as the King Tiger, Maus, JagdTiger were all extremely slow, less maneuverable and had usually had less MGs thus should be more vulnerable to infantry assault. This means a core heavy on super tanks would be hard pressed against an infantry heavy list while a more balanced force could deal with infantry easier.
For the aircraft I would recommend lowering the fuel, and thus would still be very powerful when attacking but would limit their range and limit their presence as they would need to spend more time refueling.

wyldman68 · Post by **wyldman68** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:43 pm

During WW2 the allies shot down more Me262 at takeoff than any where else. P51 and P47s hovered over airfields waiting for Me262s to try to takeoff and would destroy them ,because of this vulnerable position for Me262s. Could Me262 maybe get a big air-defense and initiative minus being by a friendly airfield on defense.

bretg80 · Post by **bretg80** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:00 pm

Good ideas, but I'm not sure you can simulate these kinds of things in this game. With the abstract level of combat represented in PanzerCorps, it is difficult to represent the specific tactics each side used to defeat units on the battlefield. The only reason the Allies were able to hang around and strafe 262's on takeoff/landing is that the Germans' had no air cover and for all practical purposes, had no airforce by that time.

We did the same thing to the Japanese at the end too. I don't think there were many planes that were taken down this way. Maybe 50 or 100, but in the grand scheme of things, that's nothing and I'm not sure it is even accounted for in the abstractions for PzerCorps.

I think we should restrict quantities of units to keep super armies from being purchased to represent historical combat. Then have a non-historical mode that allows either side to go crazy and build big super armies if they wish to simulate what-ifs.

wyldman68 wrote:During WW2 the allies shot down more Me262 at takeoff than any where else. P51 and P47s hovered over airfields waiting for Me262s to try to takeoff and would destroy them ,because of this vulnerable position for Me262s. Could Me262 maybe get a big air-defense and initiative minus being by a friendly airfield on defense.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:43 pm

"I think we should restrict quantities of units to keep super armies from being purchased to represent historical combat. Then have a non-historical mode that allows either side to go crazy and build big super armies if they wish to simulate what-ifs. "

I would totally like this as a feature as I do not think that is practical do to all balancing via prestige only. On the other hand I care less for MP balancing atm. Might be different ways of balancing are needed for SP and MP ?

Secondly I am against a malus for ME-262s since the fact that most ME-262 were shot on airfields because of allied fighers 24/7 patrolling the fields is only caused by the absolutely total air superiority of the allied air fleets in end of war period. (some 300:1 superiority in number of aircraft total) Considering that one might say that the few ME-262 indeed wrought havoc on those numbers - despite their heavy losses.

pstamatis · Post by **pstamatis** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:00 pm

I would agree with any restriction policy, as far as it affects both sides. This means changing the Allied army composition in the late scenarios. I hope this is applicable at this stage.