Slitherine

Hi,

I played the map "Frozen North" a couple of times and came to the conclusion, that the King Tiger is a bit too strong on a small map like this. On "normal" PC Campaign maps it is fine because it is not that great in moving fast

So I wonder if Frozen North was better balanced without the Tiger II and want some more opinions. Perhaps this is simply my subjective view.

Too be honest Tiger 2 is probably a bit too strong anywhere but if you removed it the IS'2 would probably be very dominant. Iv'e only played Frozen North once and try as i might i could't actually kill any, however i did heavily damage quite a few and force my opponent to withdraw them for repairs. He bought a lot of them but i would have done the same, you'd be silly not too.
There definitely tough too beat on small maps but there was still enough room for some constricted manouvre. I could surround and flank them but they are pretty much immune to features like mass attack and artillery supression and i couldn't bomb them in the snow. Still had a lot of fun trying but i lost in the end.

They aren't unstoppable, but they do require complex strategies and very detailed knowledge of game mechanics to defeat.
On the other hand, they appear unstoppable because they do NOT require complex strategies and detailed knowledge of game mechanics to use effectively.

They are quite strong, but they're manageable because of their exorbitant price. I've played lots of games of TFN as the Russians, and I haven't ever had a serious problem with someone using Tiger IIs. I'd be more than happy to prove it too, just start a private game of TFN, set yourself up as the Germans and buy Tiger IIs to your heart's content, and we'll have a go at it.

Kerensky wrote:They are quite strong, but they're manageable because of their exorbitant price. I've played lots of games of TFN as the Russians, and I haven't ever had a serious problem with someone using Tiger IIs. I'd be more than happy to prove it too, just start a private game of TFN, set yourself up as the Germans and buy Tiger IIs to your heart's content, and we'll have a go at it.

That definitely sounds like a challenge. I wouldn’t getting beat up on by you.

Let the games begin! I'll see if I can't do a little video recording and make a AAR of it.

"Big Game Hunter: King Tiger Safari"

Kerensky wrote:Let the games begin! I'll see if I can't do a little video recording and make a AAR of it.

"Big Game Hunter: King Tiger Safari"

Hhmmmmm - pickings might be slim. You are so right - they are pricey.

Hhmmmmm - pickings might be slim. You are so right - they are pricey.

this is true but pickings might be even slimmer if there were lots of them.

A good mix of conscripts, guards, tanks, and anti-tank really is quite powerful on TFN, and cheaper than King Tigers. I think the trouble comes from jugging all of these combined arms to tackle King Tigers.

Getting taught – and slaughtered – by the master Kerensky in The Frozen North.

I think I proved my point, what do you guys think as our games wind down?

Personally, I find any player can use the Tiger II effectively, because you use it directly. You can pretty much throw it against any obstacle with positive results.
The trouble is fighting them, because the only way to fight them is to do so indirectly.

First you have to figure out where they are, then avoid them and slow them down with entrenched infantry obstacles. They're big and slow, and TFN may seem like a small map, but to move from the top VHes down to the bottom is a long and laborious journey.
Once you actually start fighting them, you have to clear out any escorting and supporting units first, while controlling the Tiger's ability to move and resupply with ZOC control.
Only after the King Tiger is all alone, can you finally hammer away at it, and unless you fight it in rough terrain, bring a unit with a hard attack of at least 18, preferably 20+, to get any kind of meaningful results.

Having a very tough time of it and the tigers don't seem to have helped my cause much but to be fair it was only my first go as Germany on the Frozen North map. That doesn't change the fact that your making short work of a force with some pretty powerful units in it and appear to be doing it with relative ease. For me the Tigers were not strong enough or at least their supporting units weren't.
I'd still like to see the medium sized main battle tanks like T-34, Pz IV and Sherman have some capability to bother the heavies a little bit more than they do, but for now i got an army to stop

I focused the current MP maps on Late War because it doesn't get a lot of attention in the campaign/single play scenarios compared to Early War.
What I didn't do and should have was include a lot more Mid War scenarios (1941 and 1942) so we can see the medium weights shine in their element. This era will see a lot more use of PZ IVs, T34s, and Shermans, but there is still some unit balance to be done, because as u said, the medium weights are just too ineffective against the heavies and ubers (typically odds will be 0 - 7 but the price difference between a medium and a heavy is somewhat marginal).

You are right, the frozen north appears to be set be set in 1945 which is well and truly heavy era. I guess the desert expansion might be an opportunity to focus your talents more on the mid war years 41 -43, whenever that gets under way. Something to look forward to in the future.

(how did i get from the Frozen north to the desert )

King Tiger is a bit too strong

All I'll say is this: With Kings what do you expect, Sherman powers?

I would hope the most advanced tank is going to be over-powered. And if the IS-3 is ever added, it also should be made over-powered

The King Tiger issue reminds me a bit of balance in Street Fighter and certain moves that are considered imba by new players but rather a bad choice by veterans.

More advanced players like Kerensky see their drawbacks of the King Tiger and know how to counter them, making them not so much of a problem.

But novice or intermediate players? Imagine two not so experienced players fighting each other.
It is easy to make use of the sheer power of the King Tiger
But it is comparatively much harder to counter it.


This said, looking forward to the mid war period stuff. Late war tanks and fighters are just too strong in general.

The general problem, as I see it, is that there is no notion of historic ratios between different tanks.

Prestige is a too-simple tool to encompass all of this.

As I see it; prestige is an "after the fact" "objective" analysis of each unit's worth; and as such, it's fine.

But the WW powers did not have this information available!

Why would you as the Americans build lots of Shermans in PC (and PG games) when you have better tanks available?
Why wouldn't you as the Soviets build lots of KVs instead of all that other junk; or too much infantry instead of units more suited to Blitzkrieg?
Why wasn't all German end-war tanks Tiger IIs?

To truly solve this; you would need ratios such as "for every KV tank you build, you need nine T-34s".

Or at least, for the prestige costs to take into account survivability to a greater degree.

If you could accomplish as much with a twice as large obsolete Panzer IV army as you can with a King Tiger army (assuming you get two PzIV's for the price of one Tiger II) then the costs would be fine, and the only problem would be "learn to play".

Problem is that with skillful play, you won't allow your precious Tigers to be surrounded and run out of fuel (the rest of your army carries your back) and you can simply accomplish more when your attacks carry real oomph.

Perhaps if the maps were unbounded/limitless, then you would see the value of having a twice as large army; and then the prestige costs would be fine. But in PC you only need a strike force of the critical size; then it's better to go for quality than quantity.


TL;DR:

The opposite of Stalin's saying "Quantity is a quality of its own" is true in this game, but is it adequately mirrored in the prestige costs? In short, if strength 10 (say the Heavy Attack value) costs 100 prestige; then strength 20 shouldn't merely cost 200 prestige, it should probably cost more since you effectively store twice the attack power in the same hex.




Of course, all of this reasoning might be completely ignoring the appeal of Panzer General/Corps games; namely to build up an invincible force of super-elite units...

Molve wrote: TL;DR:

The opposite of Stalin's saying "Quantity is a quality of its own" is true in this game, but is it adequately mirrored in the prestige costs? In short, if strength 10 (say the Heavy Attack value) costs 100 prestige; then strength 20 shouldn't merely cost 200 prestige, it should probably cost more since you effectively store twice the attack power in the same hex.

This is a very good point, but unfortunately it was brought up too late in the BETA to take effect. Currently, unit pricing is based on strength and is purely linear, which means if you can buy the best, there never is any reason not to because of the principle you mentioned: storing more power in a single hex. As we move forward, this is probably the most important balance issue we hope to address.

At the same time though, we do want to preserve standard Panzer General game play of an all super elite core, at least on the normal difficulty levels.

Wow...

Molve's post is really spot on.


The problem though with a "non-linear" prestige scaling curve is it is hard(er) to find. A little to steep and the high-end units are "underpowered"/"Overpriced". A little too low progression curve quickly switches this balance to the opposite.

But I do think that the "cheapo" units are way to expensive in comparison to for example kings.

You cant even get 2 PzIVs for the price of one King and I would at all times buy one king over even two PZ IV...mostly because of the HUGE initiative impact (14 vs 9 which means the King will pretty ALWAYS fire first and with his HUGE punch destroy the totally weakly armored PzIV unit completely).

A different step to solving this might be to reduce the destruction impact of attack values a little. If for example in the current situation a Tiger II vs a PZ IVJ makes 0:6 losses..if that would be changed to 0:4 or 0:3 much of the overpoweredness of the high tech equipment is reduced. (works for other types as well).

@Molve & Iscaran:
Good posts.

To solve problem with unit cost and power, maybe an approach similar to such one should be adopted:
"I give you an unit that is 25-50% stronger than previous one, but you have to pay 100-200% more for it".

Another way to reduce the effect of the "Perfect Core" could be limiting the amount of high-end units a player (and AI) can obtain. So a player could get 10 Panzer IVs in a scenario, but only 1 King, for example.

Moreover, maybe increase in cost should not be linear, but exponential.

Iscaran's point about the Initiative score is probably very useful.

If the cost was (Attack) x (Initiative) instead of (Attack) + (Initiative) then you would probably come pretty close to solving all these issues.
(the above equations are obviously very simplistic compared to the real calculations; but I hope my point gets across anyhow)

Either that or the old PG solution where initiative is lower for each counterattack.

---

Again; keep in mind we're now discussing ways to make the player's elite army less invincible.

One thing about People's General (and the other PG games set in a "modern" era) was how much more difficult it was to preserve your elite units. I distinctly remember those games being significantly less fun to play, since you could at any time run out of luck and have the computer focus on destroying one of your "pet" units, and there was little you could do about it, since helicopters, heavy artillery etc could shred ANY unit to pieces, almost regardless of what screening units you have (if I remember correctly).

To some extent, this was present even in the WWII PG games; certainly for naval units, but that hardly mattered since they were never part of your core; more pressingly for fighter units (since only the very perfect - and obscenely expensive - elite fighters could withstand the end game western allies air armada).

This game is about the "kings of the battlefield"; and while I readily admit it's unreal, having Tiger II's come out of a scuffle with half a dozen soviet tanks without a single scratch IS fun.

In this way People's General lost sight of the core gaming experience players came for, and I sincerely hope PC respects this.
(Not that it was anywhere near the total disaster that was Space General, which completely forgot that the main draw of the series wasn't dull naval warfare where the only criteria was to have the most battleships, but the uniquely interesting rock-paper-scissors aspect of land/air warfare of the WWII era)

---

I honestly believe nothing should be changed for the default game (default settings).

I do realize this won't cut it for some of you more advanced players. How about incorporating these touches of realism into the bonus difficulties? (Rommel, Mannstein etc)
(I'm not proposing adding more such "levels"; instead adding more complications to each of them.)