Losing Core Units

PC : Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General. This promises to be a true classic!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

How much do you mind / don't mind losing Core units?

I don't mind losing core units at all.
6
9%
I don't like losing core units at all.
37
54%
I don't mind losing core units only if it's not too often.
25
37%
 
Total votes: 68

uran21
Panzer Corps Map Designer
Panzer Corps Map Designer
Posts: 1825
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:34 pm

Losing Core Units

Post by uran21 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:27 pm

How much it is acceptable for you to lose Core units regardless is it obvious player's mistake in question or overwhelming challenge causing it?

bebro
The Artistocrats
The Artistocrats
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:50 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by bebro » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:37 pm

Voted option2 - I hate it :)

That being said, the possibility of losing one of my precious pet units is still one thing that has to stay in the game, since it adds a lot of thrill during a scenario /my 2cents

VPaulus
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 8006
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:33 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by VPaulus » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:32 pm

Option 3.
It's war.

naughtybalrog
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:25 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by naughtybalrog » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:42 pm

VPaulus wrote:Option 3.
It's war.
No, it's a game and it is only playable when peeps are having fun. This is not an educational toy... it is played for pleasure and when that goes away, so does your job.
Further if you asked actual combatants the question posed above, they would answer #2.

Razz1
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:49 am
Location: USA

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by Razz1 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:45 pm

Making it where the player can not loose a core unit is giving them too much of an advantage.

robman
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by robman » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:14 pm

I hate losing core units (so I chose #2), even though I will sacrifice them when necessary (I still mind it when they die). Since 1.10 came out, I've been playing (when I remember) with "reform units" on. That eases the bite of losing units to which I have become sentimentally attached. It probably also makes my style of play a bit more aggressive, though there is still a very great incentive not to lose units, since you can't reform them until the beginning of the next scenario. Also my "house rule" is to reform them at the beginning of the next scenario or disband them. (Technically speaking, to "disband" them means to reform them and then immediately disband them, so as to break even--otherwise I get unearned prestige.) Granted, "reform units" takes some of the edge-of-your-seat suspense out of the game, so I'm not sure I'll keep playing this way indefinitely.

VPaulus
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 8006
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:33 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by VPaulus » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:17 pm

naughtybalrog wrote:
VPaulus wrote:Option 3.
It's war.
No, it's a game and it is only playable when peeps are having fun. This is not an educational toy... it is played for pleasure and when that goes away, so does your job.
Further if you asked actual combatants the question posed above, they would answer #2.
Who says it isn't a game? Yes in my opinion there's no problem in loosing one or more core units.
And why will I (and more gamers) stop having fun with the game because I lost a core unit? This is not a RPG.
Aren't we suppose to loose units in wargames? Tell me which wargame you don't loose a unit?
I hope you don't mind, but that's how I see the game.

Chris10
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:06 am
Location: Spain

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by Chris10 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:27 pm

I hate it... :D
Personally I would have implemented the "unit reform" option a bit differently.
I would have placed a destroyed core unit straight into reserves and allowed for reforming at 60% experience loss and at elite unit replacements cost (which will make the unit really expensive when a 0 strength) and then much like the "withdraw points" allowed reintroduction into the same scenario at a "reintroduction point" straight away....
back to the front

If waiting until end scenario then reform could work just like it is now

Nerdator
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by Nerdator » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:40 pm

Voted 2, because I can't stand it, although there is one class that I sometimes let myself lose — Recon, since their combat value (and therefore the value of experience) is low and they're cheap. I may also throw out a cheap infantry if it's not too experienced, but still, it immediately becomes another small reason to restart the scenario.

(although, of course, losing a Recon with spotting and movement leaders is grounds for a restart, or even a ragequit ;))
Last edited by Nerdator on Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by deducter » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:42 pm

This seems like something that would be good to tie to the difficulty level. On Colonel you should rarely lose core units, and/or reform units should allow any destroyed units to come back to the battlefield with minimal experience lost and should cost the same prestige as buying a new unit. On a higher difficulty, like FM, the AI can be more aggressive at focusing and killing some of your units, so you should lose some units here and there. In addition the reform units option should work similarly to how it does now: all experience lost. I'd go further and remove the heroes too.

Edit: To be fair there is Manstein, in which losing core units is very common. However, this is only done by giving the AI effectively 50% more dice rolls. Furthermore, there are still ways to game the system, for instance, by buying cheap cannon fodder like recon units/infantry without transports and positioning them in such a way to lure the AI onto favorable terrain for the rest of your units to finish off. Your elite units like 4-star Tigers are still mostly safe from AI attack. So the game becomes strange, in which an optimal core is one a number of super units along with a number of cheap sacrificial units.

Shrike
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by Shrike » Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:41 pm

Maybe an "iron man" mode could solve this question? I wouldn't tie it to one of the existing difficulty levels but rather make it a switch like using weather, visibility of enemy movement and fog of war.

boredatwork
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by boredatwork » Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:02 am

uran21 wrote:How much it is acceptable for you to lose Core units regardless is it obvious player's mistake in question or overwhelming challenge causing it?
I think your question is flawed because currently it is possible to lose core units without the player really making mistakes or really being challenged in the process.
This seems like something that would be good to tie to the difficulty level. On Colonel you should rarely lose core units, and/or reform units should allow any destroyed units to come back to the battlefield with minimal experience lost and should cost the same prestige as buying a new unit. On a higher difficulty, like FM, the AI can be more aggressive at focusing and killing some of your units, so you should lose some units here and there. In addition the reform units option should work similarly to how it does now: all experience lost. I'd go further and remove the heroes too.
I disagree that there is an innevitable link between unit turnover and increasing challenge - Just because some people get their biggest enjoyment out of the RPG elements of the game does **NOT** mean we're looking for easy content.

On the contrary I would argue given that the units in PzC are IMO unrealistically fragile (for an operational scale) the current perma death actually works against making it challenging in a good way. Having the AI abandon a strong defensive position just to pick off one of your units while simultaneously making itself much easier to kill by the rest of your force the next turn isn't making the game *challenging* in the fun sense of the word - merely annoying. Instead of being rewarded for good play, players are harshly punished for not playing perfectly. And perfect frequently means, at least in the DLC, methodical, cautious, boring advance because there is no reward for agressive daring maneuver commensurate with the risk.

Because it is so annoying to lose an elite core unit, particularly to random chance the developers are forced to lower the overall difficulty to reduce the possiblity of it happening. Consequently in the average scenario if a player is playing good he'll have his entire core available from start to finish increasing the requirements to provide late game AI spam spawn cannon fodder to keep the game challenging.

Short of a major mechanics change...

I would rather see core "deaths" merely represent units that are so fatigued/in need of maintenace/disorganised that they are permently withdrawn from the current **scenario** to rest and refit but otherwise still "alive" and with enough veterans that they retain most of their experience.

Do that and you can make difficulty *much* harder by giving the AI tougher units (via scaling the base strength above 10) and making it more ruthless so that it can actually force many units to withdraw leaving the player without the resources to successfully complete a scenario, without actually impacting the player's RPG experience.



Post 1.10 that is how I'm enjoying the game, albeit via cheat codes and the ability to mod difficulty - using reform units/exp to keep my units alive from start to finish (albeit at the cost of a star of experience) while playing on a custom difficulty level somewhere between FM and Manstein. The game is more challenging in a good way now as opposed to the YOINK!!!YOU WERE KILLING ME BUT I NINJAED YOUR FAVORITE INFANTRY, TIME TO RELOAD SUCKER!!! "challenge" it presented before.

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by deducter » Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:33 am

boredatwork wrote:
I would rather see core "deaths" merely represent units that are so fatigued/in need of maintenace/disorganised that they are permently withdrawn from the current **scenario** to rest and refit but otherwise still "alive" and with enough veterans that they retain most of their experience.

Do that and you can make difficulty *much* harder by giving the AI tougher units (via scaling the base strength above 10) and making it more ruthless so that it can actually force many units to withdraw leaving the player without the resources to successfully complete a scenario, without actually impacting the player's RPG experience.
Basically you are suggesting that the penalty for losing a unit should be much lower, but the AI should be toughened up enough so that it can inflict good damage on the player. So a player might lose (say 25%) of his units a scenario, but those units can come back the next scenario with some penalties. This would bring SP closer to MP in terms of gameplay and I think lead to a greater diversity of cores/playstyles in SP. This would also make it so that someone who suffered a bad break in a scenario and lost a good chunk of his core not give up in frustration, since his core will still be reasonably fit in the next scenario. I think this is a very good suggestion.

But I still think some elements of this can still be tied to the difficulty level. Mostly that at the high levels, it should not be possible to generate the "snowball effect" of just a super strong core that ends up trivializing gameplay. The penalties/prestige levels for FM can be tuned in such a way that it would be impossible to have only the best of everything with all elite reinforcements.

4kEY
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:57 am

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by 4kEY » Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:41 am

This game does have RPG elements, and I think that is what makes it so much fun. The RPG elements could also be the reason why sometimes losing units hurts like a kick in the balls.

edit: oh, and I hate getting kicked in the balls :mrgreen:

Casaubon
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by Casaubon » Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:51 am

losing core units isn´t so bad if you have big reserves of secondary/spare units, which is how I use to play. some low tech, many midtech units + a few high tech. a versatile core that can handle about 5 losses in a DLC scenario, if it is not too many of your best ones the secondary units gain experience and can be upgraded to the best class, while you buy spare units at the end. a constant growth of no XP low tech to mid tech mid XP to high tech high XP units.

boredatwork
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by boredatwork » Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:53 pm

deducter wrote: But I still think some elements of this can still be tied to the difficulty level. Mostly that at the high levels, it should not be possible to generate the "snowball effect" of just a super strong core that ends up trivializing gameplay. The penalties/prestige levels for FM can be tuned in such a way that it would be impossible to have only the best of everything with all elite reinforcements.
Fundamentally I agree with you that the reason gameplay late in 43/44/45 is trivialised is due to the snowball effect. I'm just more doubtfull the current system could be made to ***reliably*** prevent the snowball without accidently making it too hard. IMO there are simply too many variables for prestige to cope beyond a dozen or two scenarios in a campaign. IMO I'm doubtfull it will be solved short of adopting a quality based scenario core cap instead of a quantity based one.

But what I was really objecting in my previous post is the concept of tying difficulty to arbitrary linear settings. For example from your post it sounds like you would construct the difficulties something like this:

Level / +enemy str / % of player prestige / exp penalty for unit loss

Colonel / +0 / 100% / 0
General / +1 / 75% / -100
FM / +2 / 50% / -200

In otherwords for your "ideal" hard difficulty you would make the enemy tougher, while limiting expensive equipment, and adding a greater death penalty.

My objection isn't necessarily that the death penalty can't be scaled to make unit loss more painfull for those who would preffer it that way, but rather such linear difficulty levels assume that if I enjoyed playing with less prestige OR stronger AI units I must automatically also enjoy a higher death penalty.

Suppose a player similarly skilled to yourself wanted a similar level of challenge to your FM but he enjoyed having an all
King Tiger force and hated any death penalty beyond losing the unit for a scenario.

His ideal difficulty might look something like this:
?? / +4 / 100% / 0
which would fall outside what your purely linear options can provide.

Which is why IMO the better solution than a proliferation of arbitrary difficulty levels is instead make the difficulty modding the default option in the game - provide a half dozen sliders with descriptions and let the player pick and choose how to build a custom difficulty to suit them. ex: "Prestige - increasing this option will allow you to afford more high end equipment sooner making the game easier" ; "Death Penalty - changes the amount of experience a unit loses for being so damaged it is forced to withdraw from the battle" ; "Enemy unit strength - changes the base strength of enemy units and makes them more or less capable of inflicting damage on you"; etc.

VPaulus
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 8006
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:33 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by VPaulus » Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:40 pm

4kEY wrote:This game does have RPG elements, and I think that is what makes it so much fun. The RPG elements could also be the reason why sometimes losing units hurts like a kick in the balls.

edit: oh, and I hate getting kicked in the balls :mrgreen:
In future I'll rename my Core units with some legendary Baldur's Gate companion names:
Imoen, Minsc, Khalid, Dynaheir, Jaheira, etc. The SS units I'll use Edwin, Viconian, Xzar, etc. :lol: :wink:

Numdydar
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by Numdydar » Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:44 pm

What an odd poll. I'm sure anyone in a war setting would love not to lose any units lol. So why should we be any different :)

Of course it would be great not to lose any core units. Unfortunately, we, the players. make mistakes, have bad luck, etc. so our pet unit(s) die a horrible death. Unlike RL, we can already reload and possibly have the outcome changed. SO we arlready have this option.

I tend to lose core units all the time for a varity of reasons. I seldom have overstrength units (execpt Art and aircraft). Nor do I usually have a full OOB or extra units (this is with the DLC on Col. and GC on FM). Mainly because this happened in RL so it should happen in the game. At various points in the war, all sides had difficultity with keeping up their ToEs. So the game should present us with the same issues. So losing core units and keeping up with these loses is a very important part of the game for me. I'm sure Germany would have loved not to the lose the 6th Army and been able to reform it with no issue lol.

So losing core units, regardless of how 'special' they are should be an important part of the game. Also, making decisions to actually sacrifice one of our units for an important goal should be something that we should have to do at times. And rebuilding these should be costly and painful.

But as we do not have to write letters home :) everyone can play the game as they see fit. So all the options discussed here can help the various ways to play the game more enjoyable to however everyone ewants to play it. For me this is modeling war (in a very abstract sense) so units must die regardless how important to me as a player they may be.

boredatwork
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by boredatwork » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:26 pm

Numdydar wrote: For me this is modeling war (in a very abstract sense) so units must die regardless how important to me as a player they may be.
I disagree - if this was a tactical game then yes units should be destroyed all the time - men die, tanks are killed. But it abstractly models operational level combat. Unless it was physically surrounded, how often did Germany lose *entire* operational units during the war? The answer is almost never. There was almost always a cadre that survived around which a unit could be reformed. at a loss of experience if it absorbed green recruits - but more frequently with a sprinkling of combat experienced men and officers, at least until 1944.

Yes in war men die but this is already simulated by unit **damage** - If my Panzer Bn is attacked by battalions of French tanks having my units suffer casualties that must be replaced at a cost is realistic - completely losing my battalion including every tank, their entire crews, the complete command staff, and support elements on the otherhand is, IMO, not.

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: Losing Core Units

Post by airbornemongo101 » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:36 pm

boredatwork wrote:
Numdydar wrote: For me this is modeling war (in a very abstract sense) so units must die regardless how important to me as a player they may be.
I disagree - if this was a tactical game then yes units should be destroyed all the time - men die, tanks are killed. But it abstractly models operational level combat. Unless it was physically surrounded, how often did Germany lose *entire* operational units during the war? The answer is almost never. There was almost always a cadre that survived around which a unit could be reformed. at a loss of experience if it absorbed green recruits - but more frequently with a sprinkling of combat experienced men and officers, at least until 1944.

Yes in war men die but this is already simulated by unit **damage** - If my Panzer Bn is attacked by battalions of French tanks having my units suffer casualties that must be replaced at a cost is realistic - completely losing my battalion including every tank, their entire crews, the complete command staff, and support elements on the otherhand is, IMO, not.
+10000
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”