A proposal to change the way 'Core' works in PzC

[borsook79]

PzC inherited the concept of core units from PG, there is one flaw in this system. You can only have a finite number of units so it's always better in the long run to buy more all-around, expensive units. Consider this example - let's say you can but 2 AAs for the price of one Fighter. Still one Fighter is better - due to its mobility it can do a lot and you are left with one core slot open for a different unit. This deprives the game of some possible depth.

Let's consider a different scenario - instead of a number of units, core would be a prestige limit. So you could buy those cheaper AAs and use the prestige to buy some other unit, basically you could have a choice between a larger army of weaker units or a smaller elite force.

I guess this is something more for an expansion than a patch, but it could be implemented as optional, without uprooting the current system, which could stay as default. This does not affect AI in any way and hence should be relatively easy to code.

[edahl1980]

PzC inherited the concept of core units from PG, there is one flaw in this system. You can only have a finite number of units so it's always better in the long run to buy more all-around, expensive units. Consider this example - let's say you can but 2 AAs for the price of one Fighter. Still one Fighter is better - due to its mobility it can do a lot and you are left with one core slot open for a different unit. This deprives the game of some possible depth.

Let's consider a different scenario - instead of a number of units, core would be a prestige limit. So you could buy those cheaper AAs and use the prestige to buy some other unit, basically you could have a choice between a larger army of weaker units or a smaller elite force.

I guess this is something more for an expansion than a patch, but it could be implemented as optional, without uprooting the current system, which could stay as default. This does not affect AI in any way and hence should be relatively easy to code.

I always have an 88 flak as part of my core. Why? Because i am tired of enemy bombers trashing my artillery early in the games. And i dont want to spare a fighter babysitting them. In addition the 88 can be switched to tank destroying early in the game.
Besides, soon i have won the 1939 campaign on field marshall. After that i will begin playing with restrictions. I remember in PG one of the restrictions was that for each fighter i had to buy an AD and AA as well.

[El_Condoro]

What about the proposal?

It's an interesting idea, though I'm not sure it would b as easy to code as you suggest. Instead of 10 Core slots remaining you might have 5000 prestige 'slots' remaining. I think the premise of the idea is right; limited core slots = buy the best equipment and not have any 'weaker' stuff. If a unit worth, say 500 prestige was attacked and dropped to 5 points, would that free up 250 prestige in your model?

[Kerensky]

Sounds good for experienced players looking to diversify their core.
Sounds like an absolute nightmare to manage for brand new players to the game who are unfamiliar with the min/maxing of units.
Plus it opens up a huge can of worms in terms of building campaigns and deployment zones. What if someone only ever buys the cheapest infantry and units and nothing else? Will they be able to deploy them all to their heart's content?

It's a fair idea, but I can tell can get to be quite advanced (requires complex control measures and arbitrary limits to prevent abuse) and thus is entirely too punishing on casual/new blood.

[jaldaen]

If you wanted to mimic your idea, you could simply add core unit slots via "cheat" (see Cheat Code sticky) this would make it possible to have a larger army of weaker units.

[DreadWing]

I agree with the weakness of limiting the core slots, but I know that it will be hard to implement.
I was thinking of some simple RPG elements, although this doesn't make it easier to implement . Before starting the campaign, you choose what kind of commander you are. Maybe this will be based on you experience in the Great War:
- you were the commander of an airfield? Then you can use your experience to either give a boost to the AA units (start with more experience, cheaper to buy, have access to some special units), or to the fighters.
-you were in the trenches? Then you will favor infantry units.
-you commanded a tank late in the war? Then Heinz Guderian is your best friend. You want armor all the way.

Of course, the balancing of such attributes can be a real pain, requiring even more time for testing. But maybe the developer will take an element from each suggestion and come up with their own solution.

[borsook79]

What about the proposal?

It's an interesting idea, though I'm not sure it would b as easy to code as you suggest. Instead of 10 Core slots remaining you might have 5000 prestige 'slots' remaining. I think the premise of the idea is right; limited core slots = buy the best equipment and not have any 'weaker' stuff. If a unit worth, say 500 prestige was attacked and dropped to 5 points, would that free up 250 prestige in your model?

No, that would not work, as the player could buy a unit and reinforce the other one immediately, so the units should be counted against the limit via their initial cost, the losses would not matter (nor overstrengthing)

[borsook79]

Sounds good for experienced players looking to diversify their core.
Sounds like an absolute nightmare to manage for brand new players to the game who are unfamiliar with the min/maxing of units.
Plus it opens up a huge can of worms in terms of building campaigns and deployment zones. What if someone only ever buys the cheapest infantry and units and nothing else? Will they be able to deploy them all to their heart's content?

It's a fair idea, but I can tell can get to be quite advanced (requires complex control measures and arbitrary limits to prevent abuse) and thus is entirely too punishing on casual/new blood.

That's why I propose to leave the current system in place and allow to switch to point-based one in the options. It would take some testing to work out how many points one current slot is worth, but after that it's just simple mathematics. So let's assume it's 400 (kinda out-of-the blue number), so if a scenario currently allows to place 18 units in this mode that would be 18*400 worth of units, not more.

[jaldaen]

I was thinking of some simple RPG elements, although this doesn't make it easier to implement . Before starting the campaign, you choose what kind of commander you are. Maybe this will be based on you experience in the Great War... Of course, the balancing of such attributes can be a real pain, requiring even more time for testing. But maybe the developer will take an element from each suggestion and come up with their own solution.

Dreadwing, that's a very interesting idea... I'd love to be able to choose a background for my general that has a tangible effect on how I play the game and what benefits/drawbacks I might have to deal with. You might want to make this into it's own topic so that it doesn't get lost.

[borsook79]

I was thinking of some simple RPG elements, although this doesn't make it easier to implement . Before starting the campaign, you choose what kind of commander you are. Maybe this will be based on you experience in the Great War... Of course, the balancing of such attributes can be a real pain, requiring even more time for testing. But maybe the developer will take an element from each suggestion and come up with their own solution.

Dreadwing, that's a very interesting idea... I'd love to be able to choose a background for my general that has a tangible effect on how I play the game and what benefits/drawbacks I might have to deal with. You might want to make this into it's own topic so that it doesn't get lost.

This could be used a revisiting the Fantasy General system, were you chose a commander, it gave you one special ability and made one kind of troops cheaper. Such an addition would be great for re-playability.

[Xerkis]

It has been a very long time since I was able to play PG – but I thought that once your Core was filled you could still buy a unit, but it went to Aux.

If PG did or didn’t work like that – how would this fit in to you proposal?

[borsook79]

It has been a very long time since I was able to play PG – but I thought that once your Core was filled you could still buy a unit, but it went to Aux.

If PG did or didn’t work like that – how would this fit in to you proposal?

PG did work like that, but I don't see what it has to do with this proposal? I'm proposing to stop counting every core unit the same and take into account their worth, to make using cheaper units a viable tactic in the campaign. This way we could see historical numbers of Pz IIs and 38s at the start of Barbarossa...

[DreadWing]

Dreadwing, that's a very interesting idea... I'd love to be able to choose a background for my general that has a tangible effect on how I play the game and what benefits/drawbacks I might have to deal with. You might want to make this into it's own topic so that it doesn't get lost.

This could be used a revisiting the Fantasy General system, were you chose a commander, it gave you one special ability and made one kind of troops cheaper. Such an addition would be great for re-playability.

Thanks for the feedback, but I believe that, if they are interested and have time, someone from The Lordz Game Studio should create a Sticky topic asking for suggestion. This means that they will have a centralized data base so to speak.

[Xerkis]

It has been a very long time since I was able to play PG – but I thought that once your Core was filled you could still buy a unit, but it went to Aux.

If PG did or didn’t work like that – how would this fit in to you proposal?

PG did work like that, but I don't see what it has to do with this proposal? I'm proposing to stop counting every core unit the same and take into account their worth, to make using cheaper units a viable tactic in the campaign. This way we could see historical numbers of Pz IIs and 38s at the start of Barbarossa...

Sorry I misunderstood what it was you were trying to accomplish; and my mind wondered back to the days of old in PG and how it handled Core and Aux units.

[asrn]

To the OP-

Think of it in terms of logistics:
The number of units (i.e. Core) is limited by your ability to supply them.

You are a 'General' but you are constrained by how much resources you've been allocated.

[borsook79]

To the OP-

Think of it in terms of logistics:
The number of units (i.e. Core) is limited by your ability to supply them.

You are a 'General' but you are constrained by how much resources you've been allocated.

Let's face neither of the systems has anything to do with realism. I think my proposal, albeit a bit more complicated can make for a more interesting and varied gameplay, allowing more possible troop compositions and prolonging the life of cheaper units. But I do not claim it is a better representation of actual battlefield. Nor should it be, that's not what we love in PG.

[impar]

Panzer General 3D and III used a "kind-of" similar system.

The Leaders were separate from the units and you only carried your leaders throughtout the campaign, not the units.
The more experienced leaders used more slots than green leaders and had more abilities.
The units had different strengths and availabilities.

In a scenario you might have the choice of one 8-strength Tiger unit or one 10-strength PzIV or two units of 12-strength PzIII units.
You could then choose two green leaders or a veteran leader with any combination of units, both choices would use two slots.

[Kerensky]

Thanks for the feedback, but I believe that, if they are interested and have time, someone from The Lordz Game Studio should create a Sticky topic asking for suggestion. This means that they will have a centralized data base so to speak.

We read and take notes on the forums, and we have our own internal wish lists build from feedback and our own desires.
As nice as a public 'suggestion sticky' sounds it can create false expectations (BUT YOU PROMISED X WHERE IS IT!!!) and it can be a handful in itself to manage. I manage the 40 page bug thread in the BETA section, I know what I'm talking about.

[DreadWing]

We read and take notes on the forums, and we have our own internal wish lists build from feedback and our own desires.
As nice as a public 'suggestion sticky' sounds it can create false expectations (BUT YOU PROMISED X WHERE IS IT!!!) and it can be a handful in itself to manage. I manage the 40 page bug thread in the BETA section, I know what I'm talking about.

I agree. Also I want to add that my above post was not a dirty trick so to speak . Something like: "I made a suggestion for a sticky thread so now they I forced to create it, because otherwise they will seem like they are ignoring the users".
Those internal wish lists are more than enough for me.

[Longasc]

I think both Borsook and Kerensky make valid points for both systems.

I personally think the current X core units system works well, using only the latest and most expensive hardware can cause trouble. Reinforcing a Tiger II with Elite replacements is not exactly "cheap" while it is much easier to keep Infantry reinforced with elite reinforcements.

Borsook's idea could become a new difficulty level / alternate option.

I also think CORE vs AUX and "slots" need some work in PC. There are many scenarios where you cannot buy more than one unit unless you start disbanding some far away units elsewhere.
Just take GREECE as example. In campaign mode you can't buy any Italian unit. OK, maybe this makes sense actually... doh.
But in scenario mode you can't buy ANY unit either, you are already at the unit limit.

Then there is also Core vs Aux. Aux units are sometimes more advanced than what you can buy yourself at this time or special or just there for help.
Why not give people a choice?
CORE: 100% price, stays with you potentially
AUX: ~85% price, doesn't carry over to the next scenario

That Core or Aux was determined in order of purchase in Panzer General was also a pet peeve of mine. In a few cases I had to disband some cheap units to make place for a better one in my core (instead of telling the game "the infantry should have been aux, the tank i just bought is supposed to be a core unit).