Reform units as game feature

[uran21]

Reform units is a cheat with following description: when this mode is active (entering the cheat code again deactivates it), all killed units move to reserve with zero strength and can be reformed before the next scenario. Killed unit loses all experience, but preserves name, awards, heroes and battle history.

Would you like for "reform units" to have official game feature status or not?

In addition to this you can give your suggestions, opinions on how would you like to see it implemented.

[robman]

Yes, with a caveat: it might make sense to make surrendered units unreformable, provided that the conditions under which surrender occurs are limited to those in which we would really expect a unit to be totally unrecoverable.

Currently, as I understand it, units "surrender" when they are forced to retreat but have no place to go. In my experience, this most often occurs when one or more of the possible surrender routes are blocked by friendly units. In the "real world," broken units in this situation would not surrender en masse, but would make a (probably disorderly) retreat back through the friendly units, becoming combat ineffective in the short run (i.e., duration of the scenario), but not permanently. On the other hand, a formation surrounded by enemy units, with no friendly units close by, might well be totally destroyed through some combination of destruction and surrender--think Stalingrad or the Battle of the Bulge.

If "reform units" were enable as a standard setting, it might make sense to exclude from "reformability" those units that surrender when no friendly units are nearby. I can imagine a variety of ways in which this might be implemented.

[Rudankort]

If "reform units" were enable as a standard setting, it might make sense to exclude from "reformability" those units that surrender when no friendly units are nearby. I can imagine a variety of ways in which this might be implemented.

Well, if a unit is destroyed while being surrounded by enemies, I see no difference if it surrenders or is outright killed - it should not reform. The question is, do we really need such subtleties in the game rules? How often do people lose core units to the AI which are completely surrounded? And if not very often, why not just allow to reform surrendered units unconditionally?

[bebro]

Haven't voted yet, because I'm still unsure about it.

As written in the other thread, I hate losing core units, but I also think the chance to lose them adds a lot of "suspense", and for me personally minimizing core losses, or avoiding them totally is a great motivation. Dunno if it stays the same with the reforming feature (even when the units there lose all xp)...

[robman]

If "reform units" were enable as a standard setting, it might make sense to exclude from "reformability" those units that surrender when no friendly units are nearby. I can imagine a variety of ways in which this might be implemented.

Well, if a unit is destroyed while being surrounded by enemies, I see no difference if it surrenders or is outright killed - it should not reform. The question is, do we really need such subtleties in the game rules? How often do people lose core units to the AI which are completely surrounded? And if not very often, why not just allow to reform surrendered units unconditionally?

My thought was to allow for the possibility of "final death" even with the reform units option, as a middle ground between "everything is reformable" and "nothing is." One way to implement this (in principle) would be to restrict "surrender" to a situation where a unit is forced to retreat and cannot, AND when there are no friendly units adjacent. Where friendly units are adjacent, the unit that cannot retreat would simply be destroyed, with no "unit has surrendered" message. Whether this would be worth the added programming and game complexity is an open question, and ultimately of course up to the developers.

[VPaulus]

As long it remains optional like FoW/Supply/Weather, I don't see a problem. So I vote in the first option.
But if the intention is to make it permanent, then I would change my vote to the second option.

[airbornemongo101]

As long it remains optional like FoW/Supply/Weather, I don't see a problem. So I vote in the first option.
But if the intention is to make it permanent, then I would change my vote to the second option.

+1

[fliegenderstaub]

"Reform units" as an option? Yes, definitely. Why I prefer an option to a cheat? Most of the times I forget to apply the cheat until a core unit gets eliminated...

Support the forgetful!

[airbornemongo101]

"Reform units" as an option? Yes, definitely. Why I prefer an option to a cheat? Most of the times I forget to apply the cheat until a core unit gets eliminated...

Support the forgetful!

+10000

[soldier]

I guess historically units were often reformed so it gets my vote. Not sure how the heroes get preserved though (perhaps there superheroes).

[Wildthing]

I voted the first option, because the lost of all experience is painfull enough for me and i will try to prevent this. In fact i believe most players will not accept to reform his loved veterans without exp. and will restart the scenario or load a savegame.
The option is a "nice to have" and there is no reason to let it be a cheat while there is no possibility to see if its activated.
@soldier. I think the Heroes will be evacuated (not shown), a turn in the game include a few days in battle sometimes.

Greets, Wildthing

[Tarrak]

As long it remains optional like FoW/Supply/Weather, I don't see a problem. So I vote in the first option.
But if the intention is to make it permanent, then I would change my vote to the second option.

I 100% agree with VPaulus.

[Shrike]

Same here.

[boredatwork]

But there is one more problem here in any case: I believe now that PzC gameplay cannot be significantly improved without some very significant redesign. Cosmetic changes will not help it much.

The question isn't really what what our suggestions are, but rather how much Alex will realistically consider.

If he isn't prepared to even consider any change as to how it works now then whether it remains a cheat, is made an option, or is set to the default (you don't *have* to reform the 0 str unit) is largely a matter of convenience.


However if the desire is to improve PzC, rather than taking a vote as to how popular a new mechanic might be - which is a bit like asking calvalry officers in the 1920s whether they want to upgrade to tanks or stick with horses - if the developers have any free time why not quickly knock together a test version of a proposal and release it for player experiementation and comment before dismissing an idea as "too big of a change."

Not necessarily that such a feature has to be implemented into PzC but at least it will give the developers and players an opinion rooted in fact whether or not a particular option is worth investigating further as opposed to the current purely theorectical debates.

[lordzimoa]

The question isn't really what what our suggestions are, but rather how much Alex will realistically consider.

I believe you misunderstand Alex, within the current PzC code and engine the space and leverage to keep on improving and updating the current game design is rather limited and coming almost to an end. I agree on this.

So it has nothing to do with Alex not being prepared to consider any change, on the contrary it might become time to invest in new updated code and a newer engine, the next edition, that will open up much more windows for significant improvements...

So a radical step up that will involve a lot of time, planning and investment.

[VPaulus]

IMO, radical changes to Panzer Corps gameplay should only be considered for a new version of Panzer Corps, specially if they aren't applied as an option.
I don't believe that Alex has so much free time, between Allied Corps and Mac version. Naturally he might have already in mind some ideas for what will be the next Panzer Corps, and that's why it's very important that people pour out their own ideas and suggestions in what way Panzer Corps could/should be improved. But realistically, I don't think most of those, won't be adapted in this Panzer Corps iteration.
I think that the next Panzer Corps will be created with a lot input from this community.

[boredatwork]

I'm just saying that asking for an opinion regarding reform unit's implementation requires us knowing exactly what the bounderies being considered are. If the "next game" is going to be in development soon then ideas for incorporating reform units can be fairly radical.

If the "next game" isn't on the horizon and the question is how to incorporate "reform units" into the current game with minimal impact then your choices are:

leave as a cheat - requiring players to remember to turn it on every scenario
make as an option - requiring players to turn on (or off) once per campaign
make as permanent rule - requiring players to disband 0 str units if they would preffer it that way.

In otherwords all 3 options are exactly the same game - it's just quibling over convenience.


All I am suggesting is IF a new game isn't on the horizon anytime soon, IMO there are still things that can be **experimented** with to improve the existing game if people are prepared to keep an open mind. My suggestion in the other thread to reduce the death penalty but increase turnover in compensation isn't really that radical - the tools to do so are already part of the game and does not require touching existing content. I have been playing that way since 1.10 and IMO it is a HUGE improvement because it makes the later half of the GCEast simultaneously more challenging and less frustrating. And it does NOT preclude people from playing exactly the same way they are now if that is what they wish. As deducter pointed out in the other thread such a change, while fairly minimal in terms of coding, would make a huge difference to a potential allied game if said allied game winds up being otherwise a cosmetic addition of more content for the existing game.

[KeldorKatarn]

I think it is an interesting concept. Units were in fact traditionally reformed. Most units in fact are. Most prominent example on the German side is probably the entire 6th army which was reformed after being destroyed in Stalingrad.
As for the preservation of heroes, well... that depends. Units are very rarely completely wiped out. Command HQs, the generals, some higher officers, maybe even some equipment usually escapes. Even in Stalingrad some key people were evacuated before the last airfield was overrun. Some officers refused however or even re-entered the city after reporting to Manstein, according to his book.

So it does make some sense. You can keep the organization of your core intact while still losing the troops and the junior officers and NCOs therefore losing all exp. I imagine this would be especially useful for SE units. Imagine you have an SE panzer and you lose it very early to a stupid mistake. THe lost XP doesn't hurt so much because you didn't have as much anyway yet but it was an SE and the next SE replacement you get in Gebirgsjäger or something you have no use for. If you can keep the unit you get to keep the Panzer unit, even if you have to start with it from scratch. For reforming the core, disbanding was always available, so this wouldn't change anything.

So I think it is an option. I always restart a scenario if I lose a core unit, but with this I think a hardcore playthough without ANY reloading at all would be more fun. Yout build a core, and even if you lose units, you still keep the structure intact. It is certainly a feature to think about.

I think it wouldn't break much. In earlier scenarios it would still cost you XP to reform them, so it is expensive. And in later scenarios the loss of XP is very painful. So I think most people will simply reload and try again until the get the scenario right, as they used to. So the impact is minimal. But to some people it will give nice options. I'd say go for it.

[deducter]

If "reform units" were enable as a standard setting, it might make sense to exclude from "reformability" those units that surrender when no friendly units are nearby. I can imagine a variety of ways in which this might be implemented.

Well, if a unit is destroyed while being surrounded by enemies, I see no difference if it surrenders or is outright killed - it should not reform. The question is, do we really need such subtleties in the game rules? How often do people lose core units to the AI which are completely surrounded? And if not very often, why not just allow to reform surrendered units unconditionally?

The game engine doesn't support any sort of realistic supply rules, so I don't think it's important to worry reforming after encirclement and such. Hopefully in a new game some sort of better supply system could be implemented. For an elegant, yet simple system, see Unity of Command.

[Rudankort]

If the "next game" isn't on the horizon and the question is how to incorporate "reform units" into the current game with minimal impact then your choices are:

leave as a cheat - requiring players to remember to turn it on every scenario
make as an option - requiring players to turn on (or off) once per campaign
make as permanent rule - requiring players to disband 0 str units if they would preffer it that way.

In otherwords all 3 options are exactly the same game - it's just quibling over convenience.

The reason why reform units is a cheat in 1.10 is because it is experimental. I was not sure how it would affect the gameplay and balance etc. The whole point of this topic is to understand what people think of it, if they want to see it as part of "official" game mechanics (any cheat is not part of it, for obvious reasons), and if they do, how exactly it should work. The way the game handles reform cost, experience and heroes is just the first thing which came to my mind. If you or anyone else in this topic has better suggestions, I will by all means consider them. It is not difficult to tweak such things in the engine. There can be other improvements too, and we are already discussing them, like using reform option selectively (not for all units, but for some of them). Thus, we could allow to reform only a certain number of units in one go (e. g. 1 or 2-3 each scenario). If you lose more, you can revive them, but it will take longer. If we do this, experience penalty might not be as severe as now, and you get a nice additional choice: which unit to resurrect first, which is more important in the upcoming battle? There are a lot of options, and any input from our players is very useful.

As for that quote of mine which you like so much...

I believe now that PzC gameplay cannot be significantly improved without some very significant redesign. Cosmetic changes will not help it much.

Reform units is a cosmetic change of course. And yes, I don't think this feature will ultimately change (improve) game balance, challenge and "fun factor" in any way. I'm pretty sure that people who do not like to lose core units and cannot win the game after losing many of them just use various amounts of save/load to achieve the same result. And hardcore players who play without reloading rarely use units in the first place, so reform units will not affect them much. It is more a question taste. For this reason, making it an option, not mandatory, is probably the way to go. Alternatively, such a feature could be part of some difficulty levels (easier ones), with an option to play custom difficulty level, not by modifying data files, but by using game UI.

Huge problem in current PzC design is the handling of prestige. By definition "prestige" is something you get for success in your missions. We have already cut this concept as much as we could, you do not get any prestige for killing units, and DV does not always give you more prestige. But still, there is a big positive feedback between stronger core and more prestige. Even if you don't earn any prestige, with stronger core you reduce losses and save (another fundamental problem, deeply rooted in combat mechanics) . You play well - you get more prestige - you build stronger core - you play even better - you get even more prestige - you build even stronger core etc. etc.

The problem of core units and losing them is closely related to this. Novice player cannot afford losing core units (and the bonuses veterans give, like experience, overstrength or heroes), because he is already struggling. By losing units, he will soon lose the game. Good player, on the other hand, can probably accept losing units, but he does not lose them, because his core is so strong and his playing skill is good too. In theory, every player can find difficulty setting which would suit him (custom one, predefined difficulties are not enough), but in practice it would take too many iterations, and still would fail in the end. Positive feedback means that even slight fluctuations are magnified and eventually bring you out of balance. The longer the campaign, the more obvious this becomes.

Until we break this positive feedback between "stronger core" and "more prestige", no real improvement in game balance is possible. And this is even logical: High Command should commend you for winning DVs with smaller force, not with a horde of Tigers IIs which are so expensive to produce and put economy in stress. But this is exactly what I call a "significant redesign". On one hand, we should give weaker player more resources. On the other hand, good player must still be motivated to play as well as he can, instead of taking losses willingly in order to grab more resources. All kinds of caps, like "quality cap", have a problem that they do not motivate you to play better. Why bother, if it is already decided for you how strong your core will be. So, such measures cannot be implemented on their own, they must be complemented by something else. For example, a certain achievements system. Yeah, it is certainly a big change with very far-reaching implications.