Slitherine

One thing I don't like since very first Panzer General game is force organisation.
It encourage player to mass very best availiable equipment in his core force, while in real war most generals had to rely on common weaponry much more, then on high tech prototypes.

I really enjoyed some custom PG 2 campaigns (like this for example http://members.home.nl/felling/pg2/index22id.htm) where player stick to real unit with fixed organisation, just like real historical commander.


To tell a long story short - core of 10 Tiger II tanks, 5 long range siege artillery, 5 me-262 fighters and so on is as much unrealistic, as anything can be unrealistic.

Player should have some sort of motivation to have traditional backbone of his army - wehrmacht infantry, 105 howitzers, pz IV tanks and so on, like it was in reality.

In game as it is in late scenarious (like Bagration, Balaton etc) common units (pz IV, jgpz IV StuG's etc) are plain useless, as they have like 0:6 odds vs heavy armour like IS tanks and there is plenty of this mentioned above heavy armour.

I actually don't know what can be done to "fix" it? Lower maximum strength of "luxury" units and higher maximum strength for "common" units like it was done in Panzer General III game may help, probably. Or maybe make rare units demanding more then one core slot (or special "rare" slots)
In current game only restriction is price, but it is not working very well, since this high tech units cost their prestige and severly outperform common ones.

I know that it is not a flaw of this great game, but initial flaw of very PG concept.

Does anyone share my point of wiev?

I'm using a Kerensky quote. I fully agree with him.

Kerensky wrote: Goes against the fundamental doctrine of the game. That is 'let the player play they way they want'.

Restricting and limiting unit types only leads to homogenization and redundancy while severely punishing creativity. A player should be able to buy whatever they want if they want (full core of absolutely nothing but King Tigers) but the game should be designed in such a way that such extremes are not rewarded with success as would a well balanced force of all units classes.

VPaulus wrote:I'm using a Kerensky quote. I fully agree with him.

Kerensky wrote: Goes against the fundamental doctrine of the game. That is 'let the player play they way they want'.

Restricting and limiting unit types only leads to homogenization and redundancy while severely punishing creativity. A player should be able to buy whatever they want if they want (full core of absolutely nothing but King Tigers) but the game should be designed in such a way that such extremes are not rewarded with success as would a well balanced force of all units classes.

..... But is it designed in such a way that these extremes are not rewarded? Maybe not.
And most likely why Plaid is taking the poll.


And if we are going to let the player play the way he wants –just give the player 1,000,000 prestige points and 50 core slots… because that is the way he wants to build his units and play the game.

I don’t think you can have both: let the player play AND have the game designed that extremes are not rewarded. I believe they are mutually exclusive.

Plaid,

The PG2 campaign you posted sounds awesome!

I would indeed like to see a "more realistic" army. However, I also realize that doing so would be a major undertaking for the game designers. The newest Combat Mission: Battle Normandy does a great job of encouraging players to make historically accurate armies, but with enough customization to play with what if's. Perhaps the Purchase screen could have an option to purchase a historical structure of units at a slight discount in prestige (and/or core slots used), but that had limited upgrade options for the units. Of course, as I said... you're talking about a lot of coding... and rebalancing of scenarios and campaigns. Currently, the scenarios/campaigns seem to be made under the assumption of a core "elite" army rather than a core "realistic" army. This assumption makes a vast difference in how you balance units, scenarios, and campaigns. This isn't to say it couldn't be done, but it wouldn't be very easy to do without rethinking things from the ground up.

Best Wishes,
Joseph

Xerkis wrote:I don’t think you can have both: let the player play AND have the game designed that extremes are not rewarded. I believe they are mutually exclusive.

The way it works now, IMO, it's a good compromise.

VPaulus wrote:

Xerkis wrote:I don’t think you can have both: let the player play AND have the game designed that extremes are not rewarded. I believe they are mutually exclusive.

The way it works now, IMO, it's a good compromise.

Perhaps.

I suppose that I just wouldn’t even think to not have a balanced army. Each unit has a purpose and a strength and a weakness. And as long as those extremes are truly not rewarded, then there should be that compromise you speak of and the ever important game balancing.

Increase difficulty level.
Play on Rommel difficulty and you wont be able to afford high end equipment anyways.

TigerIII wrote:Increase difficulty level.
Play on Rommel difficulty and you wont be able to afford high end equipment anyways.

Yes.
But why does that philosophy only seem to work one way?

If you want a harder game – then play on Rommel level.
If you want an easier game – then have the devs change the way the game works.

Some things are coded in. Some are not. In PG3 we used to play a system called "weak hand" where you did NOT use the best equipment. One variation was to use the weakest choice of equipment, another was to use as many slots as you wanted but you had to "build" an army. 1st slot of armor used a Pz1A or B, 2nd slot could use either another PZ1 or get a PzII, 3rd a PZ III etc.
Other methods required the majority of slots be the "most common deployed unit of it's type for the time period" with each top of the line unit balanced by a lowest of some other line. i.e. 1 Tiger II and 1 early war mobile AA, with most of the infantry being Wehrmacht with no more than 1/3 specialties.

Players don't need coding to make up these systems. And BOY do you have to REALLY think about your initial placements.

Xerkis wrote:Yes.
But why does that philosophy only seem to work one way?

If you want a harder game – then play on Rommel level.
If you want an easier game – then have the devs change the way the game works.

Or if you want an easier game... you could play on sergeant mode?

Xerkis wrote:

TigerIII wrote:Increase difficulty level.
Play on Rommel difficulty and you wont be able to afford high end equipment anyways.

Yes.
But why does that philosophy only seem to work one way?

If you want a harder game – then play on Rommel level.
If you want an easier game – then have the devs change the way the game works.

I don't want them to change the game to make it easier. The game is easy enough as it is.

Kerensky wrote:

Xerkis wrote:Yes.
But why does that philosophy only seem to work one way?

If you want a harder game – then play on Rommel level.
If you want an easier game – then have the devs change the way the game works.

Or if you want an easier game... you could play on sergeant mode?

Exactly my point!

Why does the game need to be changed to make it easier – simply play on a lower level (like Sergeant)

So many threads are about changing the game that will end up making the game easier to play. Why? just play it on a lower level.

Xerkis wrote:Exactly my point!

Why does the game need to be changed to make it easier – simply play on a lower level (like Sergeant)

So many threads are about changing the game that will end up making the game easier to play. Why? just play it on a lower level.

Ya, it's annoying.
If someone cant beat the game on field marshall or even Colonel, then those difficulties isnt for you. Dont blame the game because your no good.
Put the game on sergeant, and if you still cant beat it. Try again, and again, and again.

Well, in my eyes, the idea of limitting your core concerning tech sounds promising, at last as some choosable difficulty setting.

For example:

You gain one high tech slot (out of your overall core slots) per decisive win. high tech is everything that is "younger" then about 3 (6?) month and is only deployable in a "hightech slot".

Or you gain one primary tech slot (for eqiup younger then 3 month) and two secondary slots (18 month - 3 month) per decisive victory, with the same rules as mentioned above.

Best Regards

Ranta

Sorry, but I am not saying that the game is very hard or very easy. I am speaking only about force organisation and how it works.

I am playing on Field Marshal difficulty and elite core seems the only way to beat several scenaries, as AI equipped very same way with best of what he have.

For example in 1943 east campaign after Kursk I choosed Bagration and had to simple disband good portion of my initial core to get more prestige for upgrades, as "common" tanks (pz IV) and tank destroyers (stugs, marders) are almost totally useless against soviets there.

Game have great diversity of units availiable to purchase, but not all of them have use, and its the thing, which is sad.

Player have really no reason to choose armour below panther after 1943. Yes, pz IV significant cheaper, but it will be beaten badly by almost everything, what you can encounter in action.

P.S. At higher level difficulties its even more important to max out high tech units in your core, since AI have huge prestige advantage and purchase very best stuff from his force pool.

Having a "historical" force structure could be a fascinating campaign metagame, with lots of fun possibilites to further expand that metagame, but I think implementing something like that goes beyond the scope of a patch or even an addon.
Well, maybe it could be in a Paradox'-style addon.
I'm not even sure PC is the right kind of game for that type of metagame...
_____
rezaf

Game have great diversity of units availiable to purchase, but not all of them have use, and its the thing, which is sad.

I strongly agree. There is a huge variety of units, it would be ideal to make better use of more of them and not just 'the best' all the time. Part of this is a result of the choices made toward equipment the AI gets, and has been brought up before, especially the final three Russian scenarios. Part of it stems from unit balance being slightly skewed, and part of it comes from the fact there aren't all that many scenarios that cover certain time periods of the war, especially 1942(only 2 total) and onwards. So it's a multifaceted issue, but one we're well aware of.

Among other things, it's something that we're looking to improve upon as we move into future content.

Later PG games solved this by different availabity of equipment.
The better, most modern equipment had fewer available units than regular, old equipment. And different strengths.
1 unit of 6-strength Tiger II or 1 unit of 8-strength Tiger I or 2 units of 10-strength PzIV or ...

Of course, Leaders were separated from equipment.

Plaid wrote:Sorry, but I am not saying that the game is very hard or very easy. I am speaking only about force organisation and how it works.

I am playing on Field Marshal difficulty and elite core seems the only way to beat several scenaries, as AI equipped very same way with best of what he have.

For example in 1943 east campaign after Kursk I choosed Bagration and had to simple disband good portion of my initial core to get more prestige for upgrades, as "common" tanks (pz IV) and tank destroyers (stugs, marders) are almost totally useless against soviets there.

Game have great diversity of units availiable to purchase, but not all of them have use, and its the thing, which is sad.

Player have really no reason to choose armour below panther after 1943. Yes, pz IV significant cheaper, but it will be beaten badly by almost everything, what you can encounter in action.

P.S. At higher level difficulties its even more important to max out high tech units in your core, since AI have huge prestige advantage and purchase very best stuff from his force pool.

Reduce the difficulty and use the historical units as you see fit. This way your PzIV's will have a a chance to compete against IS and so forth. Their stat weaknesses will be compensated by the weakened enemies due to reduced difficulty. And I'm pretty sure this situation will remain quite challenging.

As for me, I love rolling out cutting edge vehicles into the field.

Plaid wrote:For example in 1943 east campaign after Kursk I choosed Bagration and had to simple disband good portion of my initial core to get more prestige for upgrades, as "common" tanks (pz IV) and tank destroyers (stugs, marders) are almost totally useless against soviets there.

Game have great diversity of units availiable to purchase, but not all of them have use, and its the thing, which is sad.

Player have really no reason to choose armour below panther after 1943. Yes, pz IV significant cheaper, but it will be beaten badly by almost everything, what you can encounter in action.

P.S. At higher level difficulties its even more important to max out high tech units in your core, since AI have huge prestige advantage and purchase very best stuff from his force pool.

A PzIV can still attack infantry and scout vehicles, and even some tanks. And it can assist the bigger tanks in destroying Soviet tanks. Even finish off the enemy tanks except for heavier AT guns and tanks.
You didnt have to disband it.

What i wonder is where people get all their prestige from. Because when i played in field marshall difficulty i didnt have nowhere near the amount of prestige to upgrade all my tanks into big stuff. I was forced to field PzIV's and Panthers on Bagration. On Kursk it was even worse. There i had both PzIII and Marders. It wasnt untill Berlin that i got rid of the PzIV's in favour of King Tigers.