Balaton the unwinable battle

pyrrhus · Post by **pyrrhus** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:18 pm

Ok my second post on this since the search function doesnt work . I have played aleat 30+ times as germans and 6 times as soviet .Soviets has a easy win here , no surprise . The germans not so much I play on colonel setting or higher and its just no fun not even a chance .As for historical I wont get in to that ecept that what a pz3 g is doing here I dont know . The russian su 100 is so op its crazy ,The battle odds are just making me want to quit this game they are way off ! If this senario is suppposed to be historical it needs work . Playablity is non exsistant 12 strength panthers disappear against 2 10 strength su 100's and yes the one panther ambushed the su 100's .The german units in this senario are crap you need a tiger 2's to attack with on only start the senario with 1 replacement . 3 and I could win if lucky 4 would be better . Disbanding units doesnt help , the bombers in this game are really useless . Infantry are week sauce against tanks even if they ambush with hvy arty ( wich has no effect on tanks ) yes I am in terrain , towns hills woods etc . Not a late war reality at all . Quality counts for less in Panzer corps than in Panzer general by a far margin . I am done with this game and going back to PG A much better balanced fun game any way you look at it !

Xerkis · Post by **Xerkis** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:22 pm

Same song – different singer.

That’s not meant as a cut on you Pyrrhus; it’s just that many (including me) have voiced this same distaste for this scenario. In fact I just posted another jab at it about 10 minutes ago. It seems to go nowhere with this scenario; at least I have not noticed any posting saying specifically that it will be addressed.

I (and many others) understand and feel you frustration.

Don’t give it up though – PzC has so much more to offer.

billmv44 · Post by **billmv44** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:45 pm

If you really want to be frustrated, try it on Manstein. Hordes of 15 strength IS-2s and Su-100s. I was able to eke out a marginal victory on the last turn. A DV seems totally impossible. I tried it a second time using the cheat codes to get enough prestige to upgrade all tanks to Tiger IIs and all fighters to Me-262s. That still wasn't enough. So, I tried a third time. That time I sold back 3 infantry units to buy more Tiger IIs and then I gave them 300 experience and 13 strength. With 16 Tiger IIs (at 13 strength minimum (3 at 15 strength) I was finally able to get the DV (barely). Not the most fun to play, but historically accurate. The Germans had no chance at this point of the war.

stecal · Post by **stecal** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:58 pm

I'm with Pyrrhus - I gave up on this game until it is patched & balanced. If I want to get mentally bludegeoned to death repeatedly I can just go to work! Luckily BA released Market Garden to keep me occupied.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:43 pm

That's disappointing to hear, but I have to say I also agree to a degree. Fear not though, we've been listening to feedback on the current content very closely and are putting these lessons to good use in future content.

We're scraping or changing unpopular ideas, and we have a whole bundle of new and improved ideas that are a lot of fun.

Molve · Post by **Molve** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:50 pm

In this context, I might repeat my advice to scenario designers:

Don't require "total wins" (wiping the map clean of russians) for late-war scenarios.

Instead, these scenarios would be a good fit for "you win if you survive on the map"-style scenarios. Militarily, they might be considered a loss, but by labeling them a win, player satisfaction is increased manyfold (as long as the criteria remain challenging).

Also, such a win would allow the campaign to proceed in a semi-historic fashion. In contrast, if you achieve a Decisive Victory on the current Lake Balaton scenario, with all that such a victory would imply, you would almost expect a "Rush for Moscow '46" scenario to be next...

Byeohazard · Post by **Byeohazard** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:31 am

Iv'e mostl;y been involved with multiplayer so I'm not sure at what point this scenario comes in the game. Is it a scenario that comes up in the " scenario tree" by branching from marginal victories or is this a scenario that everyone must get through to continue with the campaign and on to conquering the USA?

Oh Mr. Xerkis, after I get a few games finished up i'd be up for another game with ya.

flakfernrohr · Post by **flakfernrohr** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:16 am

I am with you guys on this scenario and also maybe some others. They are just too lopsided. Historically that was the case late in the war, but it was not a "game", it was survival. This is a game. What is the point if you play a game knowing you will 95% or more chance of losing? It isn't a game or even a challenge. Just adjust on the cheat codes according to your conscience to balance out some things or make your own scenarios with things allowing for even a slim chance to win against the odds. You do play fantasy games within the PcZ framework anyway.

A lot of the German tanks, armor and weapons are not nearly as effective as they were in reality.

Fimconte · Post by **Fimconte** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:32 am

Byeohazard wrote:Iv'e mostl;y been involved with multiplayer so I'm not sure at what point this scenario comes in the game. Is it a scenario that comes up in the " scenario tree" by branching from marginal victories or is this a scenario that everyone must get through to continue with the campaign and on to conquering the USA?

Oh Mr. Xerkis, after I get a few games finished up i'd be up for another game with ya.

It comes if you win a Marginal Victory in Kursk or are Defeated in Moscow 43'.
If you win Bagration Decisively and conquered (DV) the British in Sealion 40, you force a END, as the Soviets agree to a peace.
Alternatively if the British are still around, you will face Allies in the Ardennes (if DV'd Bagration) or Lake Balaton (Soviets still around) and possibly at a final climatic battle in Germany if you do not manage to crush them there.

Molve · Post by **Molve** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:52 am

As for the scenario's place in the campaign, no need for elaboration, since the full campaign tree has been posted:
viewtopic.php?t=27280

As for the topic, I guess the complaints can be boiled down to "a loss is a loss - if you lose barely in turn 26 or you get slaughtered in turn 13 makes no difference the way the scenarios are constructed".

You need to pull off a completely unhistorical turn-around to eke out a "win" on these maps.

That's not the case for the early scenarios - there you might win a bit earlier, or destroy a bit more enemy units, than the historical outcome, but there "cleaning the map"-style win conditions are still very much in line with history.

Not so for, say, Lake Balaton. That's what is so jarring about these scenarios.

In both early and late scenarios you're given units capable of (roughly) repeating history. It's just that all even remotely historical outcomes in the late war leads to the same scenario outcome: "loss". That's what makes these scenarios so unsatisfying - you must either abandon all historical veracity, or you must resign yourself to a "brave loss".

Do note that this is not a core game engine issue, or even a single scenario issue. This is almost exclusively a campaign design issue.

Xerkis · Post by **Xerkis** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:42 am

Byeohazard wrote:Oh Mr. Xerkis, after I get a few games finished up i'd be up for another game with ya.

Whenever you are ready - set one up and send me the PW.

tmoj2000 · Post by **tmoj2000** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:02 pm

Of course in MP Balaton is unwinnable for the Germans

But in SP its quite doable.. You need to gain air superiority by upgrading your fighters to ME262 and let the soviet come at you.... His tanks have low ammo and will soon run out..... Meanwhile upgrade or build new german uber tanks and anti tanks and take him out.... Then counterattack

soldier · Post by **soldier** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:11 am

Iv'e won lake balaton as germany in MP with an axis advantage of + 1, against an opponent who was probably pretty inexperienced but i did it. I do agree, however it would be next to impossible against a good player. It should be winnable against the AI but you'd have to set up strong defenses then hit back hard against the damaged soviet units and try to make lots of kills each turn. It would not be easy. Bagration actually looked more unwinnable to me

Molve · Post by **Molve** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:01 am

Single-player Lake Balaton: Since the Soviet AI is on the defensive, exploit this by withdrawing your western army group out of its sight - it won't pursue.

Meaning that you have all the time you need for reinforcements, etc.

Not that the scenario is easy; just that if you play "naturally", you'll face a relentless stream of russian tanks. By moving back you get to control when and where you'll be attacking (and more importantly: counter-attacked).

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:30 pm

I finally had this scenario come up in one of my campaigns and wow, you guys weren't kidding! I wasn't even able to get a marginal victory, I had to settle for a loss. I think my mistake was that I was trying to use a somewhat historical force compisition (several Panzer IV's, a few Tigers/Pathers and only one Tiger II}. I think this scenario, better than any other, really shows how overpowered the heavy armor in this game is, the IS-2 just kills Panzer IV's at like 7-0/8-0 odds. Panthers and Tiger I's are very effective against it either. The scenario really forces you to use pretty much only Tiger II's in order to have a chance.

Fimconte · Post by **Fimconte** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:35 pm

JagdPanthers are quite useful as well, but in the Campaign you'll probably have a more tank centric army since the self-propelled AT's are superior to tanks in only a few early-war scenarios.
Panzerjäger IB is only superior to PzIV-D, IV-E is arguably more versatile.
Marder IID is inferior to its contemporary tanks in almost all aspects except the price, it's nearly half the cost of a PzIV-G (269 vs 506).

But it's not until you get access to the StuG series and the Elephant do the ATs get respectable armour and can compete with Tanks,
but by then (Italy/Kursk/Moscow 43') you will have access to Panthers and Tigers.
And in reality only the Elephant is a viable replacement for a Tank since by that point Stugs are comparable only to PzIV-G and Nashorn lacks armour.

The cost difference is also smaller, Panther A - 675pp, Tiger I - 723pp, Elephant - 468pp.

But if you haven't been able to afford upgrading your PzIV's into Tigers by Bagration you're almost better off selling the PzIV-G/H/J's at deployment and buying Jagdpanthers.
Even Veteran (3 Star) PzIV-J's are inferior to Jagdpanthers (17HA vs 24HA, 12Ini vs [11 on attack]14 ini, 18GD vs 19GD) , and if you haven't been able to upgrade your Panzer IV's by this point, it's unlikely you'll have the spare prestige to upgrade them later.

Molve · Post by **Molve** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:04 pm

Fimconte wrote:JagdPanthers are quite useful as well, but in the Campaign you'll probably have a more tank centric army since the self-propelled AT's are superior to tanks in only a few early-war scenarios.
Panzerjäger IB is only superior to PzIV-D, IV-E is arguably more versatile.
Marder IID is inferior to its contemporary tanks in almost all aspects except the price, it's nearly half the cost of a PzIV-G (269 vs 506).

But it's not until you get access to the StuG series and the Elephant do the ATs get respectable armour and can compete with Tanks,
but by then (Italy/Kursk/Moscow 43') you will have access to Panthers and Tigers.
And in reality only the Elephant is a viable replacement for a Tank since by that point Stugs are comparable only to PzIV-G and Nashorn lacks armour.

The cost difference is also smaller, Panther A - 675pp, Tiger I - 723pp, Elephant - 468pp.

But if you haven't been able to afford upgrading your PzIV's into Tigers by Bagration you're almost better off selling the PzIV-G/H/J's at deployment and buying Jagdpanthers.
Even Veteran (3 Star) PzIV-J's are inferior to Jagdpanthers (17HA vs 24HA, 12Ini vs [11 on attack]14 ini, 18GD vs 19GD) , and if you haven't been able to upgrade your Panzer IV's by this point, it's unlikely you'll have the spare prestige to upgrade them later.

The best solution to these issues is to hope for an extended campaign, a patch that inserts more scenarios into the 42-44 period.

(This as a response to my own first thought "the German units aren't optimized for gameplay". While that might be true

the main issue, I believe, is the too-great jumps in time between scenarios immediately preceding this)

Fimconte · Post by **Fimconte** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:02 am

Molve wrote: The best solution to these issues is to hope for an extended campaign, a patch that inserts more scenarios into the 42-44 period.

(This as a response to my own first thought "the German units aren't optimized for gameplay". While that might be true the main issue, I believe, is the too-great jumps in time between scenarios immediately preceding this)

I don't know, I think the problem is in the Scenario version, your frontline troops are deployed in "random" fashion, not taking advantage of terrain and cities at all.
And they are not Entrenched, which is absurd, since historically Vitebsk held for several days, in-game, Vitebsk falls before you can do anything.

Entrenchment and more realistic deployment of troops would go a long way in fixing some of the problems on this map.

In Campaign, it depends if you're losing intentionally to get to Bagration in which case you often have a very strong core and the ability to deploy it yourself helps tremendously, so it's not very difficult to win.
If you're doing badly though and get to Bagration with a rag-tag army and low prestige, it can be painful.

Ryben · Post by **Ryben** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:30 pm

In the Blitzkrieg period Germans were able to defeat much better equipped allies, you could roam the countryside with PzII and PzIII and win.

But, somehow, with later war equipment, the differences between AFV´s are so huge that unless you have Panthers or Tigers you are fried. I guess PzIV adn Stugs were still useful in that part of the war. In close terrain and laying ambushes they were able (with difficulties but able) to knock out heavy soviet tanks.

But in PC they couldn´t achieve a thing. Maybe the Soviet stats need a revamp (it´s not making heavier german tanks more powerful but soviet somehow a bit more vulnerable).

This way Balaton could be more manageable.

soldier · Post by **soldier** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:27 pm

I think obviously if you have 1 PzIV unit vs 1 IS 2 unit, the panzers should get smashed, because in a one on one (or even numbers) clash they are out classed. Unfortunately in the game a ratio of 3 to in favour of the Germans still results in them getting thrashed. In this situation some panzers should be able to close in on the flanks or rear of the heavies and get within ranges that can penetrate. This is what the Russian T -34's did at Kursk.
I've mentioned before that the mass attack feature has little influence on combat situations like this where it should have an impact (eg - slow moving heavies being outnumbered and flanked) but seems to have more impact where it shouldn't ( eg an entrenched infantry unit in a town who should be able to defend a wider front with an economy of effort).

Having said that the IS 2 is an extraordinary tank, with side armour just as strong on the sides as it is at the front, while somehow managing to keep overall weight down and maintaining good speed. Its huge cannon is good at either assaulting troop positions or taking on tanks (but has low ROF and ammo load).