Slitherine

Hey all
Love the game... but am I alone in thinking the random projections before battle are a bit ridiculous? They are INCREDIBLY inaccurate. The enemy does consistently more damage than is reported... I usually do less. I'm playing on mid difficulty overall, and I'm getting a bit frustrated with the game despite the fact that I think it is a great attempt. Simply put, it is unfair in it's predictions (sadistically so, it seems) and it seems a little TOO hard. I know I can turn the difficulty down... I'm posting this because it seems like when you go through great effort to plan a brilliant series of attacks with excellent, full strength units in combination (air, artillery and making use of surrounding the enemy, etc.) you should not suffer horrendous losses in EVERY single combat... Polish troops were NOT that TOUGH, guys. Come on... I'm not for getting rid of randomness or making the game super easy, but it is terrifically unsatisfying to play a really good tactical game and suffer big losses at every turn from some of the weakest enemies the Germans faced. I'd be grateful if the game was balanced a bit better. As it stands, I may get too frustrated to continue playing much more if every single scenario is fraught with massive losses (I have superior equipment... I plan my attacks at least reasonably well... yet STILL I suffer losses in EVERY engagement, even the ones where I should BLOW THE ENEMY AWAY.???????!!!!!)

And yes.... I would like cheese with my whine.

lol

Are you scouting out the enemy properly? Are youbeing hit by supporting artillery you cannot see? This is the most common reason for higher than expected casualties.

I can't agree with your assessment.

I am still trying to get to grips with the mechanics of the game, after hours of gameplay and having had lots of experience years ago with the old game. I look at what some people report on how they progress through the campaign and am amazed. But I am slowly getting better after picking up loads of tips from this forum.

I suggest you need to improve your gameplay rather than the game needing improving.

Hope that's enough cheese for you.

Your observations are justified. Results of the battles can vary a lot and be very different from the predictions. This can happen even when there is no artillery nearby.

It is, however, a two-sided issue, since the predictions can vary to your favor as well. An outcome that you do not notice as often, because we all tend to attack with favorable outcomes, so the results that are in our favor tend to not appear as extreme (or get noticed) as the 3-4 turning into a 4-1.

The game itself is not too hard, even on the hardest starting level (Field Marshal) it is possible to have decisive wins in most of the campaign, if you try it for the second time.

I guess you can only try lower difficulties if its too hard or wait until you become more experienced. Perhaps you will get more favourable combat results when you become more familiar with the capabilities of your units and are more selective about what you attack and when. Always check out the soft/hard attack of your unit and the ground defense of their target to get a better idea. Don't forget to look at outside influences like weather, terrain/entrenchments and experience, these all influence combat in different ways. Finally if your always suffering horrible losses after attacks you may need to re think your tactics and try a different strategy. I find I'm generally able to get pretty decent results after a well planned attack on field marshall. Its true sometimes you don't always achieve you goal but it shouldn't end in disaster... just a delay.

I will say that troop vs troop combat in close environment seems very difficult to predict in this game and the German infantry appear to have no advantage over their early war opponents in this area (save initiative), so give them plenty of support and expect losses.

I think I see what you mean. You are going to take many losses against Poland despite your tactics and weaponry. Or many more than you think you should.

I know it is a bit frustrating that you should be just stomping the poor, hapless Polish. I felt that too. Then I realized that the Polish in this game are probably a little better off than they were historically, just simply because of game play. I'm not sure how re-playable and fun just completely stomping the crap out of the computer for 8-9 scenarios in a row would be.

I know what you mean, I have had entire columns being halted because some silly enemy unit just wouldn't bow to my superiority .

The fact is, and this has been mentioned before, that on average the combat predictions turn out to be pretty good/reliable, a single combat prediction may vary wildly.
And something else that has been said often aswell: the combat result can be much better than "expexted" aswell which is what people seem to forget.

I think that this variation in the combat result prediction versus the real outcome is actually a great part of the game, you can never really count on what will happen and you have to adjust your strategy/moves all the time. It's this variation that makes the game great and offers good replayability.

While playing the DLC '39 and '40 most of my units are fighting with 6-8 strength, anything lower and I will move them away from the frontline, I think this is much better than having some 13 strength uber unit demolishing everything in it's path.

I must say thay I move rather slowly and causious, I always soften up an enemy unit with either artillery and/or planes. Even a single reduction in strength is gonna favor "the odds" for the next attack.
Also you must be aware of what terrain you are fighting in any vehicle in woods or hills is gonna be a sitting duck for enemy infantry.

The game itself is not too hard, even on the hardest starting level (Field Marshal) it is possible to have decisive wins in most of the campaign, if you try it for the second time.

Field Marshal isn't the hardest difficulty. Try one of the bonus difficulties if you find it too easy.

The randomness and unpredictability of the 'prediction' window has been a repeated sore point, but it's just one of the aspects of the game. Clearly it would not be an improvement if the predictor was 100% accurate.

And yes, the forums are a wealth of tips and information. Feel free to ask for tips, or visit threads such as this for nice lists:
viewtopic.php?t=29134

I'm a bit humbled by the responses... the cheese comment was intended to soften what I realized was some pretty harsh criticism of what is (overall) a magnificent game well worth every penny I spent on it.

I think I need to adjust my expectations; despite what it may sound like, I am not a poor player. I think I need to realize this game, as much as it is a tribute to PG, is different in many ways (most of which are great-- improvements, to be sure) from PG (Poland was not such a difficult opponent, for instance)

At any rate, thanks for posting the replies and I'll see what I can do to adjust my expectations. I think I might just have to spend a little more time studying the unit strengths.

Peace

Abraxes12 wrote:I'm a bit humbled by the responses... the cheese comment was intended to soften what I realized was some pretty harsh criticism of what is (overall) a magnificent game well worth every penny I spent on it.

I think I need to adjust my expectations; despite what it may sound like, I am not a poor player. I think I need to realize this game, as much as it is a tribute to PG, is different in many ways (most of which are great-- improvements, to be sure) from PG (Poland was not such a difficult opponent, for instance)

At any rate, thanks for posting the replies and I'll see what I can do to adjust my expectations. I think I might just have to spend a little more time studying the unit strengths.

Peace

Think of it this way: As tough as the RNG can sometimes be in this game, and punish the player with bad results, how does your casualty report look?
'C' hotkey.

When I finished DLC 1939, this is how mine looked. Even with the occasional 'bad luck' result (2 fighter losses were both Elite 109s) the losses the enemy suffers still HUGELY outstrips the units I've lost by comparison.



So as tough as some individual battles feel to be... remember the big picture. You're killing 5 or even 10 times as many enemy units as you are losing, it's not out of the question that at least a few battles shouldn't go your way all the time.

We need to get rid of the out lying combat results.

Perhaps limit the randomness to -2 or +2

Razz1 wrote:We need to get rid of the out lying combat results.

Perhaps limit the randomness to -2 or +2

I don't think this is a good idea. Risk management is a big part of this game.

First part of the problem is based on comparing the game to PG where you tried to finish without loosing any units, because loosing elites was a big problem in late game. Here its not such a big deal, since xp doesn't influence the units so much.

The second part is that people tend to remember the bad outcomes (especially if they loose their unit due to bad luck) and forget the good ones quickly.

Third part is the combat prediction (the main one not the one under ctrl+click) doesn't show all the risks involved.

I think a lot of the people complaining would stop if there was an option at the beginning of the campaign to create a new RNG seed after reloading the game (check box choice as with fog of war, ammo and fuel), or would make this the default option on the lower difficulties. People attached to their units, or having the assumption the AI cheated could reload the game with a new seed and fight again.

We absolutely will not be changing the randomness. It is a core part of the design.

The outlying combat results are what you have to plan for. A good copmmander hopes for the best but prepares for the worst. If you are nto prepared you will get punished. This is not chess.

iainmcneil wrote:We absolutely will not be changing the randomness. It is a core part of the design.

The outlying combat results are what you have to plan for. A good copmmander hopes for the best but prepares for the worst. If you are nto prepared you will get punished. This is not chess.

Thank you

iainmcneil wrote:We absolutely will not be changing the randomness. It is a core part of the design.

The outlying combat results are what you have to plan for. A good copmmander hopes for the best but prepares for the worst. If you are nto prepared you will get punished. This is not chess.

I don't think this is a good idea. Risk management is a big part of this game.

First part of the problem is based on comparing the game to PG where you tried to finish without loosing any units, because loosing elites was a big problem in late game. Here its not such a big deal, since xp doesn't influence the units so much.

The reason some people (myself included) play this game (and PG) is for the RPG-like aspects of developing our core forces. Therefore XP or no permantly loosing core units, with their kills and medals and histories, regardless of the fact it plays no factor in the difficulty of the game is a major turn off.

The problem in Panzer Corp then isn't that it's random, the problem is IMO that casualties are on average too high to the point where if the roll goes against you there is NOTHING a commander can do can realistically prepare for it. Regardless of how cautious you are, in at least some scenarios YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE A CORE UNIT unless you happen to be really lucky with your rolls.

Which means that while winning a scenario is easy - doing it without randomly losing a core unit or two is an excercise in reload frustration.

I think a lot of the people complaining would stop if there was an option at the beginning of the campaign to create a new RNG seed after reloading the game (check box choice as with fog of war, ammo and fuel), or would make this the default option on the lower difficulties. People attached to their units, or having the assumption the AI cheated could reload the game with a new seed and fight again.

No because that doesn't aliviate the necessecity of reloading the game. What I would preffer to see (short of changes to the CR mechanics) is the **purely cosmetic** option when buying a replacement unit to instead for the same prestige cost to reform a dead core unit with 0 experience, 10 str, but name, kills, medals, history, and possibly heroes intact and a little note in the history saying "destroyed date X, reformed date Y." In otherwords the ability to get "my" unit back instead of a completely different unit just "Atl-Ned" to the same same.

Unless it was caught it a pocket most "destroyed" units yielded a cadre around which they could be subsequently rebuilt with new recruits, retaining at least a semblence of continuity.

boredatwork wrote:Unless it was caught it a pocket most "destroyed" units yielded a cadre around which they could be subsequently rebuilt with new recruits, retaining at least a semblence of continuity.

It would be cool if on the next scenario any unit that ws destroyed in the previous one showed up in your core with 1 strength point and 1/2 the experiance and a random loss of heores.

boredatwork wrote: option when buying a replacement unit to instead for the same prestige cost to reform a dead core unit with 0 experience, 10 str, but name, kills, medals, history, and possibly heroes intact and a little note in the history saying "destroyed date X, reformed date Y."

I think this is a great idea. I actually miss my killed core units but stopped bothering to try and save them at all cost. But the above solution could work very nicely.

boredatwork wrote:
No because that doesn't aliviate the necessecity of reloading the game. What I would preffer to see (short of changes to the CR mechanics) is the **purely cosmetic** option when buying a replacement unit to instead for the same prestige cost to reform a dead core unit with 0 experience, 10 str, but name, kills, medals, history, and possibly heroes intact and a little note in the history saying "destroyed date X, reformed date Y." In otherwords the ability to get "my" unit back instead of a completely different unit just "Atl-Ned" to the same same.

Unless it was caught it a pocket most "destroyed" units yielded a cadre around which they could be subsequently rebuilt with new recruits, retaining at least a semblence of continuity.

Imho this is one of the best ideas to improve the game experience.

Just leave the dead units in the roster, with 0 experience and 0 str as boredatwork said.
Then implement a condition for reinforcement, that reinforcing a 0 str unit costs as much a buying a new one (incl trucks).

Simple and elegant.