SE Units in the Future DLC

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:54 am

I think the new plan is 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

That means the maximum amount of SE units you can have is 2 in DLC 1939, 3 in 1940, 4 in 1941, 5 in 1942, 6 in 1943, 7 in 1944, 8 in 1945.

Or would 2 3 4 5 7 8 8 be better?

Oh yea, this is another new editor feature. You can modify the amount of 'bonus' units available in a campaign on a scenario by scenario basis. No more hardcoded to 3 only.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:59 am

Also, how much would it bother people if future DLC start with 1 SE unit already in the player core? Something to jump start people's accumulation of SE units.
That might get bumped to 2 in the later DLCs where the limit is so high.

AgentX · Post by **AgentX** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:19 am

Kerensky wrote:Also, how much would it bother people if future DLC start with 1 SE unit already in the player core? Something to jump start people's accumulation of SE units.
That might get bumped to 2 in the later DLCs where the limit is so high.

Maybe, instead of starting off with one, how about awarding the first SE unit automatically for winning the first scenario? Kind of a reward to kick off the campaign: "Congratulations on your great victory, Herr General. Because of your outstanding job, High Command has seen fit to award you a SE unit. Blah, blah, blah" (here might also be a good area to explain the benefit of an SE unit and how it doesn't take a core slot). If a person starts the Grand Campaign at later entry date (say, they start in '43), then you can up the initial reward to 2 SE units for winning the first scenario. The SE reward would only kick in after the first scenario of your entry point into the GC. The others could either be random, or you might instead consider awarding the additional ones at set times during the various DLC's. Unless, they are truly random and can't be "gamed" by using the "save and load till you get one method". I think having them at set points during the campaign might be better as rewards for winning certain scenarios (make it for MV or DV, so no one misses out on them) and, then, they could also be spaced out more evenly throughout the Grand Campaign. As far as the max numbers of SE units, I like the first choice better: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:09 am

If the decision is historically based, it seems to me the SE unit count in 1939 (Poland) should be zero. The number of SS units, which SE units represent, was extremely small, under army command and their effect suspect in many cases. This is at odds with the 'philosophy' of the SE units in the game, which are supposed to be elite and highly trained. SS units in the invasion of Poland (DLC 1939) were anything but.

By 1940, however, there was a dramatic increase in the number of SS divisions.

If SE units are not meant to be thought of as SS units in disguise then this is all irrelevant.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:24 am

I thought 3 was enough. Now you want 8 against the AI?

We don't need that advantage.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:50 am

There are no SS units in Panzer Corps. That's the official explanation.

As for having more than three, the core size of the late DLC scenarios is going to be quite huge because we plan to have continual growth throughout the DLCs, so of course the SE unit limit also needs to grow.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:28 pm

^ Is that a hint the maps will be larger?

Larger maps are good as a player can move around and use strategy.

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:59 pm

- I like the first numbers (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) better.

- 8 SE units? 4-5 between 41 and 42 are already too much IMO. This is an extra to the core that will also be much harder to balance.
Basically, you lost your SE units? Bad luck for you, people who didn't start with 2-3 more units extra.
It also doesn't make them special anymore if they make up around 20-33% of the fighting force.

Which also makes me wonder: How large will the deployment slots for each map grow till 1945?
I rarely buy more units than I can deploy, and the deployment slots are slowly growing by +1 or staying the same during the original PzC campaign.
That's also true for the DLCs so far.

How many deployment slots will maps have by 1942?
And how will the ratio of SE units to deployed core units be?

That's the question, because the relation of the SE units to normal core unit deployment slots should not grow in favor of more SE units which would also make it harder to balance the maps. I.e. some have the max number of SE units, others start with 2-3 SE units less and therefore field less units.

- Agent X has a point. SE units get awarded and people are happy but then immediately start to wonder how to get them.
That they are awarded for outstanding success isn't true, as the system is entirely random atm. But true, people will like to hear that they are outstanding.
The entire way SE units are awarded needs some thought.

My suggestion for SE unit limits:
1939: 1
1940: 2
1941: 2
1942: 3
1943: 3
1944: 4
1945: 4

That's 1,2,2,3,3,4,4.

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:52 pm

I like the idea of increasing the SE unit limit with each DLC, we might just need to test it to accurately pass judgement.

deducter · Post by **deducter** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:17 pm

I also agree it would be best to award SE units at specific times, or as awards for either DV or special objectives in a mission, like the captured units. People really liked the way captured units worked, as a bonus.

At the very least, the option to do these things should be made available in an editor, so for custom campaigns this should be doable.

airbornemongo101 · Post by **airbornemongo101** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:14 pm

The 2,3,4,,..etc sounds GREAT,,but i can see this is controversial so here are some ideas.

How about making some captured units "bonus" units

IE:take a certain obj. and get awarded a "bonus" "t-34",,or Char..etc.(that way they woud not neccisarily have to be a SE unit)

Or award an experimental SE unit for a certain victory condition intsead of the percentage chance.

IE:a Panther A in '42

Or mix up the SE types

IE:SE FLak,,SE Sturmpioneers,,SE Arty.

That way if the 2 thru 8 way is chosen the player would have the oppurtunity to field an entire SS,,,oops..SE,formation.

I also think that they should be avl after '39 for use in the '40 campaign.In Poland they were used in penny-packet size formations directly attached to Heer units.During the invasion of the Low coutries they were made into their 1st division (later re-named into the 2nd division) and 1 independent regiment.

Having the bonus units is an intergral part of the fun PZC ,imho, and should be continued and capitalized upon somehow in a way that further enriches the already rich gameplay and re-gameplay of PZC.

No matter how one personally feels about them the "SE" were a part of the Wermacht in WWII and should be represented.I think the devs have done an excellcent job of it.

Anyway,, you guys have made great product and I'm sure what ever you guys decide will be awesome

Sorry for the long post

BriteLite · Post by **BriteLite** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:42 pm

airbornemongo101 said "Or mix up the SE types IE:SE FLak,,SE Sturmpioneers,,SE Arty. That way if the 2 thru 8 way is chosen the player would have the oppurtunity to field an entire SS,,,oops..SE,formation. I also think that they should be avl after '39 for use in the '40 campaign.In Poland they were used in penny-packet size formations directly attached to Heer units.During the invasion of the Low coutries they were made into their 1st division (later re-named into the 2nd division) and 1 independent regiment. Having the bonus units is an intergral part of the fun PZC ,imho, and should be continued and capitalized upon somehow in a way that further enriches the already rich gameplay and re-gameplay of PZC."

Totally agree. After trying some of the mods out, some of the maps are so large with many enemy units one does not have enough friendlies to provide a decent defense. Historically this is accurate. However the disparity is far too great ingame. Adding additional units to the SE mix adds to the possibilites for the player. I would like to see SE units begin in 1940 on the following schedule.
1940=1
1941=1
1942=1
1943=3
1944=2
1945=0
By the end of 1944 although Germany managed to depoly SE formations they were of little use in the overall scheme.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:59 pm

We experimented with limiting and shrinking core sizes, and it turned out to be a poorly received feature that was often mistaken as being a bug.
It was decided that constant but slow growth was going to be the theme of the DLCs.

With that in mind, we can't have reducing SE slots. 4 in one DLC and then 3 in the next one. Core size, and bonus units, is always going to be constant or increasing, not decreasing.

So for every DLC, the player core sizes increases by 6-10. And with every DLC, 1 extra SE unit slot also becomes available. So the ratio of normal to SE slots is pretty constant.

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:53 pm

Kerensky wrote:With that in mind, we can't have reducing SE slots. 4 in one DLC and then 3 in the next one. Core size, and bonus units, is always going to be constant or increasing, not decreasing.

So for every DLC, the player core sizes increases by 6-10. And with every DLC, 1 extra SE unit slot also becomes available. So the ratio of normal to SE slots is pretty constant.

That makes sense.
Why are we suggesting the number of SE units when we haven't the slightest idea how the campaign will evolve? After all how many scenarios are we used to play in a single campaign?
80/100 scenarios that's a lot. It's a huge task and challenge for the devs to balance it correctly.
This grand campaign is something quite unique, IMO.
More than ever ,our devs, are working on the edge.
Kudos to them.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:02 pm

Why are we suggesting the number of SE units when we haven't the slightest idea how the campaign will evolve?

I have very specific ideas and plans on how the campaign will evolve.

I don't think it would have gone over well if I just started making stuff up on the spot. The full plan, all the way up to the 'final' DLC, has already been planned and discussed in detail.

We have a pretty clear picture of where we're heading.

I personally relish the challenge. But I don't really see why it's going to be a huge balance issue.

Part of the beauty of the system is we have 'breaks' built into it.

If people are generally become too strong because of a snowball of playing previous campaigns, we design the next campaign to be very difficult. Very difficult doesn't mean 15 strength IS-2 everywhere, there are a lot of options available to us.

If we analyze the ending core force of a player, we can design future content on that. This should become very apparent with the 'starter' DLC 1941 core. There are many 12 strength and 1 and 2 star units pre-placed, and I think the starting prestige is 3000. This is also where pre-placed SE units may be important to implement. The different between 0 and 8 SE units is not small, so we may pre-place 1 or 2 of these units at the entry scenario to later DLCs, to even the playing field.

But that's only for people who start DLC 1941 fresh. People who enter 1941 after 1939 and 1940 will bring that force with them.

Anyone who is having too easy of a time with the DLCs have the option to increase the difficulty setting on a DLC by DLC basis.
You can play 1939 on Sergeant, then import your core into 1940 and play on Field Marshal. If that's too tough, people can either restart 1939, restart, 1940, or continue 1941 on... I dunno, let's say Colonel.

Anyone who says the DLC campaigns are too easy and balanced too trivially, well the only thing I have to say to them is:
"Show me your Manstein setting AAR for each DLC campaign, I would like to read it."
What else is there to say about people saying content is too easy, when they aren't even playing on the hardest modes?

Colonel mode is the default setting.
Default means the setting people first play when they install the game for the very first time and simply hit the 'New Game' button. That's how Colonel is balanced, more or less.
For those who struggle on this default setting, we provide them with lower settings of Lieutenant and Sergeant.
For those who breeze through it, General and Field Marshal are available.
Anyone who masters those are welcome to try their hand at Guderian, Rommel, and Manstein.

Anyone who masters those are welcome to try their hand against me in multiplayer.

monkspider wrote:Excellent writeup Kerensky! First of all, let me thank you for taking the time to play against me. It has been an honor to play against a member of the development team such as yourself, especially one so bright and creative and willing to engage with the fans.

Now, that said, I was very pleased with the results of the match! When you are playing against Kerensky, the question is not whether you are going to win or lose but simply how badly you are going to lose. So going into this match, I knew I was going up against the best in the business and my goal was not so much to win but simply to avoid getting completely stomped if I could avoid it. I remember finding Kerensky's tutorial videos on the Low Countries scenario to be a revelation. His revolutionary tactics caused me to rethink how I played the game and taught me a lot of valuable lessons. Actually playing against Kerensky has taught me even more.

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:13 pm

Well said Kerensky! I can't wait to see what 1941 has in store for us. An obvious question that I don't think has been addressed is to what extent will we be able to change history? Will we able to defeat the Soviet Union in the 1941 campaign or any of the others? Or should we only expect a bonus scenario like Dunkirk while the overall outcome stays more or less the same?

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:19 pm

monkspider wrote:Or should we only expect a bonus scenario like Dunkirk while the overall outcome stays more or less the same?

This is the current plan.
However with our new adaptable system, it may be entirely feasible to change history.

But changing history will probably mean Playing "DLC 1945 Invasion America" instead of playing "DLC 1945 Koenigsburg/Berlin The Last Stand".

Changing history significantly is a big deal. Would you be satisfied with 1 or 2 little scenarios, or entire campaigns dedicated to exploring alternate history?

We haven't fully explored that far into the future though. With strong support from our player base though, I'm sure we'll get there eventually.

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:19 pm

Kerensky wrote:I have very specific ideas and plans on how the campaign will evolve.
I don't think it would have gone over well if I just started making stuff up on the spot. The full plan, all the way up to the 'final' DLC, has already been planned and discussed in detail.
We have a pretty clear picture of where we're heading.

I was just referring to us players and not the devs. I believe you already know where you're heading.

Kerensky wrote:I personally relish the challenge. But I don't really see why it's going to be a huge balance issue.

Part of the beauty of the system is we have 'breaks' built into it.

If people are generally become too strong because of a snowball of playing previous campaigns, we design the next campaign to be very difficult. Very difficult doesn't mean 15 strength IS-2 everywhere, there are a lot of options available to us.

Does this means that the difficulty will be in a way dynamic, depending on how a player evolve while playing, or some of the campaigns will be more harder than others?

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:21 pm

airbornemongo101 wrote:The 2,3,4,,..etc sounds GREAT,,but i can see this is controversial so here are some ideas.

How about making some captured units "bonus" units

IE:take a certain obj. and get awarded a "bonus" "t-34",,or Char..etc.(that way they woud not neccisarily have to be a SE unit)

Or award an experimental SE unit for a certain victory condition intsead of the percentage chance.

IE:a Panther A in '42

That idea is definitely on the table.

viewtopic.php?t=28844

deducter · Post by **deducter** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:24 pm

I can personally vouch that every scenario in 1939 and 1940 beta v2 DLC except Spoils of War is beatable on Manstein DV. I guess I am hoping for 1941 and beyond scenarios to have missions so hard that they are truly unbeatable on Manstein, like even MV would be really hard. Basically the Spoils of War model.

Edit: Oh wait, I forgot Oslo, which is luck based to save that Heavy Cruiser, the Blucher. Maybe there was something I didn't think of when I tried it, but the AI sunk it in 3 turns, despite me getting units within range of the forts to distract them.