Slitherine

As i can see, everybody at this forum liked bonuses from Heroes, gifts like SE and so.

But what youre think about penalties in PzC ?

Option " Upgrade penalty" in rules is set at 0 by default.
# When a unit is upgraded within the same series of equipment (e. g. between two PzIII or Bf109 modifications), its experience does not change. But if the unit is upgraded between two different series (e. g. from Bf 109 to FW 190), it loses some experience in the process, specified by this parameter.#

What you will feel if this parameter will be set to 10 % ?
It will force to apply modernization of units more reasonably and cleverly.

hi. Good idea, I would have no issue with that, it would model the learning curve of new equipment. However remember that you loss all your overstrenght when you upgrade bf 109 to Fw 190 but not Bf 109 E to Bf 109 G so there can be a massive penalty.

Martin

milliethedog wrote:hi. Good idea, I would have no issue with that, it would model the learning curve of new equipment. However remember that you loss all your overstrenght when you upgrade bf 109 to Fw 190 but not Bf 109 E to Bf 109 G so there can be a massive penalty.

Martin

Rule lose OS switches separately from Rule Exp Penalty.
# 1=lose OS when upgrading; 0=don't lose
By default = 1, so its can be changed to 0.

The idea of a loss of some experience when upgrading to model the unit adapting to new equipment is good, but a % hit is a bad way to do it as it imposes a bigger penalty on more experienced units that should actually cope with a change of equipment better than a less experienced unit.

IMO the upgrade rules are broken anyway. Firstly, "family" upgrades should lose OS as well (they are unlikely to receive the extra tanks or planes through official issue) and secondly "non-family" upgrades should be cheaper than a new unit because such an upgrade doesn't mean replacing every last piece of equipment which a new unit would need to be given, also in an existing unit soldiers would not have to be trained how to do their job, just how to use the new equipment in their existing role - much easier to do.

I think the idea of penalties is an interesting one. It could reflect the learning & training needed that crews needed for their new equipment. Further, some equipment was rushed into service with bugs that had to worked out. The experience penalty would reflect that as well.

I think this could also be tied to the difficulty. For example, the penalty could be -10% for colonel, -15% for general & -20% for field marshal.

TSPC37730 wrote: I think this could also be tied to the difficulty. For example, the penalty could be -10% for colonel, -15% for general & -20% for field marshal.

Its impossible at current set of rules.
And 15 % too hard to calculate without calculator

Cerberus51 wrote:The idea of a loss of some experience when upgrading to model the unit adapting to new equipment is good, but a % hit is a bad way to do it as it imposes a bigger penalty on more experienced units that should actually cope with a change of equipment better than a less experienced unit.

Not a big deal,
10 % for 1-star - 10 pp, for 5-star - 50 pp

Cerberus51 wrote: "non-family" upgrades should be cheaper than a new unit because such an upgrade doesn't mean replacing every last piece of equipment which a new unit would need to be given, also in an existing unit soldiers would not have to be trained how to do their job, just how to use the new equipment in their existing role - much easier to do.

Its possible to do this in games rules. By default - 100 % (cost new unit), but it can be changed. (?50 %?)