Infantry close defence

[Horseman]

Hi all,

So the invasion of Russia has gone well and I've just defeated a massive and I mean MASSIVE armoured counter attack east of Moscow

The slog through the streets of Moscow has really brought home to me the gulf between Engineers and other infantry.

Even following heavy suppression my Greanadiers and Wehr infantry were still taking significant damage clearing out the enemy whilst my pioneers took the odd bit of chip damage in similar situations.

I understand the rational that practically every unit has zero for close defence as close in (especially city) fighting was very deadly but I feel the double whammy of high CD as well as ignoring entrenchment makes engineer type units just too good. Just look at the AAR section - players trying to optimise only use Pioneers and that seems to be replicated in most of the YouTube lets plays I've seen.

The historian in me hates the fact that pioneers form the bulk of infantry forces and the gamer In me would like to see a better variety of units being useful.

As it stands Engineer types have a lower GD to help balance then being masters of close warfare and perhaps justified by the minimal longer range firepower that carry (opponents are in optimal range before them....though really that effect is shown via iniative)

What's others thoughts on perhaps other infantry having CD increased? My first thought is maybe just increasing other infantry types to 4-6 CD. Still noticeably worse than engineers. This would help IMO put engineers back in lone with what they were in PC (and PG before that). Which is to say when you need them you really need them (think dislodging that 5 star OS infantry that's dug in to the max in fortified terrain) but other than that they're a nice to have and still useful but you can get by without them.

That could also leaves Mountaineer types monstrous in the right terrain...if they have 4 base CD it'd be 9 in hills/mountains but I'm OK with that. Proper Mountain trained troops were generally elite/specialised and did handle themselves in their "home turf" far better than standard.

Anyway that's turned into a longer post than expected, thanks for reading and thoughts?

[Kerensky]

I see that low CD as a necessity. It has to be there to offset infantry being bulked up to 15 base strength.

Maybe it can go up a tad, but not to 4.

Conscript 0
Basic normal infantry 2. 1943 upgrade to 3.
HW grenadier I like at 0. Make them more vulnerable in close, because those heavy weapons they use are cumbersome. Perhaps they should get better normal defense, to truly make them stand out as the 'open ground' infantry type.

I sort of want HW infantry to give fire support against soft, but maybe that's a too much.

How about in future, a Mortar infantry type, especially designed to be infantry that provides soft support. That'd be kinda neat. And so much safer than having to bring expensive big artillery guns into scary urban environments.

[charonjr]

I agree that other infantry - with the exception of Conscripts/Brückenpioniere/Cav - need at least some CD as well and Gebirgsjäger need slightly more than the 2 they already have. At the moment taking Pioniere is the way to go when trying to get the most out of the slots IMO.

+2 / +3 for '43 Wehr sounds like a good start, and maybe +3 / +4 for Fallschirmjäger due to their extensive training (Monte Cassino comes to mind).

edit: I am tinkering with the opening move for Moscow at the moment and I field 3 Pioniere and 1 Fallschirmjäger (for the fort).

[Horseman]

Some good ideas there.

I think I'd rather see a smaller increase than I initially suggested. Mainly as it's better to test balance by making small tweaks at a time.

I like in theory the idea of HW having 0 CD and even providing support. However that really depend on your view point in how units are represented. To me, my Grenadiers are better equipped infantry rather than just carrying all the HW.

Think more like a standard Wehr infantry company (which did not have any HMG's within their structure as they were all contained within a HMG company that made up a Battalion) compared to a motorised infantry/panzer Grenadier company that did have HMG's in their organisation (they did not have a separate HMG company) they also had a higher proportion of L/SMG's I think as well.

It's difficult because in this game things are rather abstract (and I like it like that) but I like that HW inf is really just a better equiped/trained unit. A bit like with tanks really. The late Panzer IV has the same mission profile as the Panther really (ie MBT) but one is clearly superior....but you don't always just use the best (either in game because of cost/slots or irl because of production)

Maybe 0 for conscript and 2 for everything else (going to 3 with 43 upgrade)

The other issue with HW becoming open ground experts is that in reality no infantry was open ground experts, they like cover to much! And in game they still have to compete with tanks too....

[panzeh]

Yeah, I don't really think there's a situation given the series' mechanics in general that HW will ever really make much sense as the unit is currently conceived. I reworked it into a support specialist unit but it's still not an ideal thing to me.

What I did with engineers was make them base 10 strength but let them transform into bridge engineers to make them more of a support specialist unit, rather than fuss with CD as that would make cities significantly harder to take.

[SineMora]

I'm not convinced an across the board improvement to infantry CD would be a good idea, because like Kerensky I worry that infantry will just end up being damage sponges -- they already enjoy a 50% bonus to strength, and if close combat is made less deadly for them digging them out of fortified locations could turn into a slog. Ever try digging engineers out of a city? It's hard to inflict any real casualties on them.

That said, I don't think there's any doubt that infantry isn't balanced right now. The worst offender are the grenadiers, because while the other infantry has some form of niche -- if not necessarily terribly useful ones -- grenadiers are really only superior in the open, which is the one place you don't ever want infantry to fight in, much less expensive infantry with transports (because with a movement of 2 and no forced march you can't really opt out of them unless the scenario doesn't require you to move). They could have their CD boosted and engineers theirs lowered to make them the best defenders, or they could be capable of fire support or some form of short 1-range "artillery" (mortar?), but they need something. Engineers should be the premier assault specialists but it doesn't make much sense for them to also be the best defenders; they're armed with rifles and flamethrowers, not machineguns. If it were possible to have different CD depending on whether you're attacking or defending that might work, but I'm not sure the game supports that.

[gokkel]

I think buffing the CD values of all other infantries would be pointless for reasons explained; maybe giving every infantry some minor defense (1-2 points) to differentiate them from inferior infantry types like Conscripts would be ok, but it does not appear necessary to me right now.

Pioneers on the other hand maybe could get a nerf to bring them closer down to other infantry types, by lowering their CD for example.

I really like the idea of Kerensky about mortars though. It is actually quite surprising that mortars see no representation in the Panzer Corps games.

[panzeh]

I'm not convinced an across the board improvement to infantry CD would be a good idea, because like Kerensky I worry that infantry will just end up being damage sponges -- they already enjoy a 50% bonus to strength, and if close combat is made less deadly for them digging them out of fortified locations could turn into a slog. Ever try digging engineers out of a city? It's hard to inflict any real casualties on them.

That said, I don't think there's any doubt that infantry isn't balanced right now. The worst offender are the grenadiers, because while the other infantry has some form of niche -- if not necessarily terribly useful ones -- grenadiers are really only superior in the open, which is the one place you don't ever want infantry to fight in, much less expensive infantry with transports (because with a movement of 2 and no forced march you can't really opt out of them unless the scenario doesn't require you to move). They could have their CD boosted and engineers theirs lowered to make them the best defenders, or they could be capable of fire support or some form of short 1-range "artillery" (mortar?), but they need something. Engineers should be the premier assault specialists but it doesn't make much sense for them to also be the best defenders; they're armed with rifles and flamethrowers, not machineguns. If it were possible to have different CD depending on whether you're attacking or defending that might work, but I'm not sure the game supports that.

One of the things i found when i reworked HW infantry is that i gave them anti-tank support and they ended up being way too good against early war tanks even with a tiny HA value because of the 15 strength. That's the tough point for HW infantry.

I'm kinda thinking engineers should probably be split into two units- one with 15 strength, a higher core cost, and just the normal engineer 'ignore entrenchment' ability, and one with the other support abilities with 10 strength and a lower core cost. I'm also okay with the best assault units still being the normal infantry with engineers in support giving out their buff.

[Horseman]

I think buffing the CD values of all other infantries would be pointless for reasons explained; maybe giving every infantry some minor defense (1-2 points) to differentiate them from inferior infantry types like Conscripts would be ok, but it does not appear necessary to me right now.

Pioneers on the other hand maybe could get a nerf to bring them closer down to other infantry types, by lowering their CD for example.

I really like the idea of Kerensky about mortars though. It is actually quite surprising that mortars see no representation in the Panzer Corps games.

Regarding Mortars. Whilst I'd like to see them represented my guess is that they never have been because you don't really see examples of large formations of them. Everything else you see as Battalion strength at least. But I don't think any army had battalion of mortars. At best it was a company strength unit.

[Gwaylare]

At the moment I do not feel we need any change here for engineers. I do not know much about the campaign, but for me engineers are very special. In MP games they are quite usefull on maps like Tobruk. But an most maps I do not buy engineer units, because they work well just against a static enemy. In dynamic MP games they are not usefull at all, because with movement 2 and without force march they have much less options then regular infantry or mountaineers.
So just looking at soft attack and close combat does not reflect how usefull a unit is.
In one game I tried a massiv use of engineers and I lost this game by far, outnumbered by conscripts.

So overall I feel fine all the infantry stats so far. May be conscripts are a little bit to cheap, so it is very easy to spam them and they have the ability to eat a lot of damage for almost no costs. I like those cheap units a lot, may be we need some special rule making them easier to surrender.

Best regards
Gwaylare

[panzeh]

At the moment I do not feel we need any change here for engineers. I do not know much about the campaign, but for me engineers are very special. In MP games they are quite usefull on maps like Tobruk. But an most maps I do not buy engineer units, because they work well just against a static enemy. In dynamic MP games they are not usefull at all, because with movement 2 and without force march they have much less options then regular infantry or mountaineers.
So just looking at soft attack and close combat does not reflect how usefull a unit is.
In one game I tried a massiv use of engineers and I lost this game by far, outnumbered by conscripts.

So overall I feel fine all the infantry stats so far. May be conscripts are a little bit to cheap, so it is very easy to spam them and they have the ability to eat a lot of damage for almost no costs. I like those cheap units a lot, may be we need some special rule making them easier to surrender.

Best regards
Gwaylare

That makes sense- in MP entrenchment is far less of a factor so engineers don't make anywhere near as much sense, whereas a lot of the challenge of the campaign is clearing heavily entrenched defenders.

Also, for what it's worth, in a soviet campaign I did, I found conscripts to be quite useful because they were dirt cheap to replace and only used 2 core slots.

[Horseman]

At the moment I do not feel we need any change here for engineers. I do not know much about the campaign, but for me engineers are very special. In MP games they are quite usefull on maps like Tobruk. But an most maps I do not buy engineer units, because they work well just against a static enemy. In dynamic MP games they are not usefull at all, because with movement 2 and without force march they have much less options then regular infantry or mountaineers.
So just looking at soft attack and close combat does not reflect how usefull a unit is.
In one game I tried a massiv use of engineers and I lost this game by far, outnumbered by conscripts.

So overall I feel fine all the infantry stats so far. May be conscripts are a little bit to cheap, so it is very easy to spam them and they have the ability to eat a lot of damage for almost no costs. I like those cheap units a lot, may be we need some special rule making them easier to surrender.

Best regards
Gwaylare

Makes a lot of sense - I'm almost certainly coming from a campaign point of view which involved assaulting heavily entrenched positions time and time again!

I actually only use 2 Pioneers in my core along with 2 Grenadiers and 2 Wehr infantry and I'm certainly not getting smashed. I would however like to see slightly less of a gap between Engineers and other infantry in close fighting. I'm just not 100% sure on how to achieve that without throwing all balance out of whack

[gunnergoz]

I think buffing the CD values of all other infantries would be pointless for reasons explained; maybe giving every infantry some minor defense (1-2 points) to differentiate them from inferior infantry types like Conscripts would be ok, but it does not appear necessary to me right now.

Pioneers on the other hand maybe could get a nerf to bring them closer down to other infantry types, by lowering their CD for example.

I really like the idea of Kerensky about mortars though. It is actually quite surprising that mortars see no representation in the Panzer Corps games.

Regarding Mortars. Whilst I'd like to see them represented my guess is that they never have been because you don't really see examples of large formations of them. Everything else you see as Battalion strength at least. But I don't think any army had battalion of mortars. At best it was a company strength unit.

Regarding mortar battalions: The US Army had "Chemical Mortar Battalions" of 4.2 inch mortars. Designed to lay down smoke and toxic chemicals, their HE payloads were so deadly that the battalions were in constant demand by US corps commanders. Soviets also fielded heavy mortar battalions, 160mm and 240mm, but only the former were anything remotely mobile. These battalions were more like light artillery than infantry but in this game they could be represented as 1 or at most 2-hex range artillery. Not sure if they would be worth the trouble.

[Horseman]

I think buffing the CD values of all other infantries would be pointless for reasons explained; maybe giving every infantry some minor defense (1-2 points) to differentiate them from inferior infantry types like Conscripts would be ok, but it does not appear necessary to me right now.

Pioneers on the other hand maybe could get a nerf to bring them closer down to other infantry types, by lowering their CD for example.

I really like the idea of Kerensky about mortars though. It is actually quite surprising that mortars see no representation in the Panzer Corps games.

Regarding Mortars. Whilst I'd like to see them represented my guess is that they never have been because you don't really see examples of large formations of them. Everything else you see as Battalion strength at least. But I don't think any army had battalion of mortars. At best it was a company strength unit.

Regarding mortar battalions: The US Army had "Chemical Mortar Battalions" of 4.2 inch mortars. Designed to lay down smoke and toxic chemicals, their HE payloads were so deadly that the battalions were in constant demand by US corps commanders. Soviets also fielded heavy mortar battalions, 160mm and 240mm, but only the former were anything remotely mobile. These battalions were more like light artillery than infantry but in this game they could be represented as 1 or at most 2-hex range artillery. Not sure if they would be worth the trouble.

Interesting- I had no idea such formations existed.

Something for me to look into.

Mortars were a big part of ww2 so seems a shame for them to be totally unrepresented

[gunnergoz]

Regarding Mortars. Whilst I'd like to see them represented my guess is that they never have been because you don't really see examples of large formations of them. Everything else you see as Battalion strength at least. But I don't think any army had battalion of mortars. At best it was a company strength unit.

Regarding mortar battalions: The US Army had "Chemical Mortar Battalions" of 4.2 inch mortars. Designed to lay down smoke and toxic chemicals, their HE payloads were so deadly that the battalions were in constant demand by US corps commanders. Soviets also fielded heavy mortar battalions, 160mm and 240mm, but only the former were anything remotely mobile. These battalions were more like light artillery than infantry but in this game they could be represented as 1 or at most 2-hex range artillery. Not sure if they would be worth the trouble.

Interesting- I had no idea such formations existed.

Something for me to look into.

Mortars were a big part of ww2 so seems a shame for them to be totally unrepresented

I concur, but if mortar units are merely 1-hex attackers, how do they defend? At least the Stug "artillery" unit has a hefty defense rating, but mortar battalions are just riflemen in mortar pits - not a substantial defense. If the mortars have a 2-hex range, they are effectively artillery and not much more value than a 75/76mm field artillery unit, though to be honest, the 4.2 inch and 120mm mortars could lob rounds with as much explosive effect as a 105mm howitzer, so perhaps they could have a range of 2 but the firepower of a 105mm? Given the game is restricted to 1 unit per hex, I'm not sure I want to clutter up the battlefield with too many specialized units.

[econ21]

I agree with Horseman. I think you could remove the engineers higher CD and things would be better balanced. From a historical perspective, I don't see why combat engineers should be particularly good at defending - their flamethrowers and high explosives are more to neutralize enemy defenses (negate entrenchment bonus + some HA too). Ignoring entrenchments alone should be enough to make engineers attractive - particularly given that artillery can't reduce base entrenchment anymore. Maybe give them a little higher CD to reflect their ability to use smoke etc. to screen attacks.

If engineers remain balanced as they are, I think their core slot value should be higher as they are just too good relative to all other infantry.PG games - and also games like Steel Panthers - have always had a tendency to induce players to just field engineers. To be honest, combat engineers - like King tigers etc - were rare units that were more powerful than more common mundane units. In single player campaigns, I don't think higher prestige cost will offset this higher power. You need some mechanism to reflect the unit's rarity. In PzC2 that mechanism is the core slot value.

I don't feel grenadiers have a niche in PzC2. In PC1, you were trading off mobility for power. In PC2, you trade off mobility for.. what exactly?

I thought the balance in PC was close to perfect - just keep that and give regulars lower core slot cost than rarer, more powerful infantry types (engineers, paras, Heavy Weapons).

That said, I only run with two engineers in PC2 (trying to keep more or less historical Panzer divisions) and found it is not too bad. I feel I often need to be very deliberate in attaching entrenched positions (lots of artillery prep), so usually would not make more than two such frontal assaults per turn. I found regular infantry in Moscow city were never attacked by Russian infantry if they had artillery support. And regular infantry can do quite well in following up/supporting engineers (the engineering support bonus is a nice touch). In Moscow, particularly, I valued the higher movement speed of regulars - in PzC2 I find I am very short of units, so am attacking on a narrow front. Three movement speed allow your small cluster formations to reform their line more rapidly as the engineers break one strongpoint and you prepare to assault another in different direction. Regulars did ok killing Russian tanks in the city too.

[adiekmann]

I strongly feel one of the greatest imbalances in PC2 is the infantry. I feel the strengths and weakness of the three main types of Inf was far better represented in PC1.

First of all, the name "grenadier" in WW2 was just a name - all inf was renamed Grenadiers from 42/43 onward. If they had transport, then Panzergrenadiers.

Every division only had a battalion of engineers. They were specialists.

What they really represent in this game are heavy assault troops, actually what should be the game's grenadiers minus the ignore entrenchment, who did the bulk of urban fighting. Pioniere were for fortifications and the like, such as sappers in the Battle of Sevastopol. Why would any regular infanterie be weaker in defense than Pioniere? In reality, this doesn't make sense. In attack, perhaps, but the numbers are all wrong. Recon may have been broken in PC1 and is now fixed, but now the infanterie class group is.

The heavy infantry, or grenadiers, in PC2 are the heart of the problem. In PC1 they had stronger attack and increased initiative in exchange for lower movement and reduced ammo. They were superior to pioniere in all ways except the lack of ignoring entrenchment and the bonus against fortifications. Again, because pioniere were specialists, not regiment sized units. This is wholly misrepresented in PC2 which is making other infantrie falsely weaker. The only difference between wehr and grenadiers right now is +1 initiative (which isn't as big of a deal as it was in PC1)...and not much else other than negatives like 2 movement.

So far, I see the problem 2-fold: underpowering grenadiers, and the shift in game dynamics reducing the importance of initiative (compared to PC1 and its ancestors) in favor of the "accuracy" model of how combat works. Pioniere should not be so dominant in close combat, at least not in overall defense. I know the Pioniere have lower regular ground defense, but the way the game plays this is not enough of a difference maker since most of all infanterie's value is in close combat tiles. This is such an artificial dynamic that makes little sense to me.

Okay, enough. I could go on, but I hate reading walls of text too. I don't necessarily have the answers, but thought I'd put problems as I experience it out there.

[Horseman]

Some valid points there guys.

Have I been looking at this the wrong way?

Instead of buffing other infantry to lesson the gap should we be talking about getting the good old nerf bat out on engineers and lowering their CD?

[adiekmann]

I agree with Horseman. I think you could remove the engineers higher CD and things would be better balanced. From a historical perspective, I don't see why combat engineers should be particularly good at defending - their flamethrowers and high explosives are more to neutralize enemy defenses (negate entrenchment bonus + some HA too). Ignoring entrenchments alone should be enough to make engineers attractive - particularly given that artillery can't reduce base entrenchment anymore. Maybe give them a little higher CD to reflect their ability to use smoke etc. to screen attacks.

If engineers remain balanced as they are, I think their core slot value should be higher as they are just too good relative to all other infantry.PG games - and also games like Steel Panthers - have always had a tendency to induce players to just field engineers. To be honest, combat engineers - like King tigers etc - were rare units that were more powerful than more common mundane units. In single player campaigns, I don't think higher prestige cost will offset this higher power. You need some mechanism to reflect the unit's rarity. In PzC2 that mechanism is the core slot value.

I don't feel grenadiers have a niche in PzC2. In PC1, you were trading off mobility for power. In PC2, you trade off mobility for.. what exactly?

I thought the balance in PC was close to perfect - just keep that and give regulars lower core slot cost than rarer, more powerful infantry types (engineers, paras, Heavy Weapons).

That said, I only run with two engineers in PC2 (trying to keep more or less historical Panzer divisions) and found it is not too bad. I feel I often need to be very deliberate in attaching entrenched positions (lots of artillery prep), so usually would not make more than two such frontal assaults per turn. I found regular infantry in Moscow city were never attacked by Russian infantry if they had artillery support. And regular infantry can do quite well in following up/supporting engineers (the engineering support bonus is a nice touch). In Moscow, particularly, I valued the higher movement speed of regulars - in PzC2 I find I am very short of units, so am attacking on a narrow front. Three movement speed allow your small cluster formations to reform their line more rapidly as the engineers break one strongpoint and you prepare to assault another in different direction. Regulars did ok killing Russian tanks in the city too.

I got interrupted before I posted my initial comment. In the meantime this got posted and he makes basically the same case that I did. Sorry for the repetition.

[adiekmann]

Some valid points there guys.

Have I been looking at this the wrong way?

Instead of buffing other infantry to lesson the gap should we be talking about getting the good old nerf bat out on engineers and lowering their CD?

If I were pressed right now to quickly give a solution, I would say two things:

a. nerf the close defense of the Pioniere.
b. significantly increase the attack values of the grenadiers. Perhaps give both them and wehr inf a CD of 1.