Aw, brettz123, I have to apologize in advance for my post, as you are the only one so far who has given his opinion on it. So I'm going to take your counter-arguments and try to further explain what I mean by picking them apart. It's nothing personal, I don't want to trash your opinion, but I enjoy a solid debate. And I've seen many good suggestions, including the about the scenario/AI changes you support, but this one's mine so I'll be a bit vigorous about it
. If you don't like my tone and/or attitude, just let me know, I'll tone it down a bit, I can get over-excited sometimes.
Ok, are you ready?
brettz123 wrote:I would not support this at all. The same thing can just be achieved by limiting the number of prestige you get in a scenario and is less complex.
You don't have to support it, but I'm going to use your arguments to further highlight what I'm talking about. First of all, adjusting the prestige earned in scenarios is very complex, and very hard to do in the current system where everyone gets the same prestige bonuses. And you have to do it for every scenario, for every outcome. I'm sorry but saying it's 'less complex' is not going to cut it for me as an argument without some more detailed explanation/examples.
There should not be any mechanics that punish play.
I started typing this reply before deducter responded, luckily I checked before posting, but I'm not going to change to content, although his examples are slightly better to get the point across. Anyway:
With the same logic: there should be no time limit to complete a scenario, no difference in DV/MV's, you should be given all 'reward' units when finishing a scenario, you shouldn't have to pay to replace losses during when playing. Sorry, but by extending your own logic I can turn the argument upside down. This is not to say your argument is bad, just that you should be careful in stating and defining what you mean by it. Why shouldn't the units be subject to expenses when using them? You are already paying to replace losses, to overstrenght them. In fact you are paying to refuel/rearm already, in that most precious of all commodities: time.
Things like paying for "maintenance" or paying to keep a CORE unit from being transferred to another front.
Ok, now I understand why you are worried. You misunderstood my argument and made it into something else. Let me quote myself: These are just examples, please don’t take them to literally.
What I meant was that in real life, a General had to exert influence to be able to keep using the most prestigious units. I used this argument to try and support the notion that keeping expensive hardware under your command might incur 'prestige' maintenance costs. And that this mechanism is already implemented in the game by the way the core transfers to GC '42-'43 West. There was some protest about that too, but it seems to have been accepted mostly. I wasn't trying to say that OKH should take my units away if I failed to pay my subscription fees. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
This needs to be fixed without taking prestige from players in a punitive manner.
I echo deducter again, the game already does this. It's just that the definition of 'punitive' can be rather personal. Some people feel punished if the combat predictor is too far off, or have their precious unit wrecked by a rugged defense. Actually it's the hardship that can provide the fun as well, nothing is so satisfying as overcoming difficulty. So what is your definition of punitive? Because it is rather pivotal to your argument, and it is rather hard for me to adress it without knowing what you mean by it. I have a definition or three, but then again I know a thing or two about penology.
How many players will become angry enough to stop playing the game (and not buy follow on DLCs) if they end up losing a unit "to another front" during the game because they don't have enough prestige to keep it?
Adressed above, this is not what I proposed. But as an interesting aside, how many people stopped playing or demanded their money back when they started GC '42-'43 West and their finely-tuned core was taken away from them, followed by the robbery of their massive prestige build-up? Cyprus pales in comparison to the losses inflicted on the player here. I haven't seen much complaints yet, but it would be interesting to see the sales of GC'44 West en GC' 45 West to see if this is happening and on what scale.
Paying anything but a token amount for supply is essentially the same as paying a per turn prestige penalty.
'Essentially', yes & no. I didn't say how much prestige would have to be spend on maintenance/supply, but it should not cripple normal players, that would defeat the entire purpose of the system.
Yes in the sense that the player will have to spend prestige regularly to keep his units fighting, but with the important distinction that the player can control within limits how much he spends.
And no: a fixed per-turn penalty is markedly different, a fixed amount of prestige for everybody regardless of difficulty (which is the current system, the one we want to change, the whole reason for this thread) will be a 'token' payment for a snowball player but extra hardship for a rookie.
If a rookie pays next to nothing and a snowballer pays more, it will reduce the 'snowball gap'. If a player with a large core of cheaper units pays very little, and a player who fields all jets and Jagdtigers pays more, than it will not penalize the people who play 'historical' cores or very large ones, and not even those who have the occasional top-tier unit. But it will dampen the multiple 15-strength Tiger II + Me262 cores, as first of all a 15-str unit would at least be 50% more expensive to maintain (not to operate, unfortunately, unless the fuel consumption mechanism is changed) than a regular unit, and you might be paying as much in maintenance and supply for it as several 'lesser' tanks.
So it would dampen excess, if you call that penalizing, it's more like taxing the rich while trying to spare the poor. And it's not a linear tax, but one that gradually ramps up.
It is a bad idea because it punishes people who cannot stockpile large amounts of prestige and again is a punitive means of limiting prestige.
Again, I didn't say how much prestige would have to be spent on maintenance. What would you consider excessive or punitive amounts? It doesn't have to be much, and it certainly shouldn't be much for the cheaper units, I just stated it should be relatively more for the more expensive ones. That's all.
And again, if limiting prestige is punitive, than the whole prestige system is based on punishment, as you are always awarded finite (=limited) amounts, and you are forced to spend it at regular intervals already, at least I assume most people don't still use Panzer I's in 1945 and have to reinforce them regularly.
The beauty with maintenance/operating costs is that you don't
have to stockpile tons of prestige, as per the current system. You have to keep a small pool of prestige, but if you always start a scenario with next to zero prestige and can't get some in a few turns, well, I suggest playing at a lower level?
In my proposal, if it is properly balanced for the various difficulties, it will be a very gradual and 'death by a thousand cuts' system. It doesn't remove whole chunks of prestige as happens when resurrecting a dead unit or upgrading, for example. So people should not run into walls, but get gently squeezed a bit more as they try to balance maximizing their core composition vs. expenses. Just like real life, balancing the budget. And under the current system people can get stuck after upgrading too much too fast and then start to be unable to fill up their core as well.
I don't mind rewarding efficient CORE construction but punishing one style of CORE construction over another is not a good idea.
I agree with this statement. So am I correct in assuming that you are opposed to the current system then, as it punishes (even mildly) historical cores in favour of the 'big snowball of doom' cores that are, as deducter has repeated often, more economical in use, because they are not only more effecient, but the most
efficient as well? If you are opposed to maintenance costs as well, what would be the best solution to this problem? You seem to advocate better scenario design and branching, coupled with better AI tactics. Those are good options as well, but I understandd from Rudankorts' posts that he want a solution which focuses more on the way experience and prestige are handled in the game. So I tried to tailor my suggestion to this.
The 5-star games are about allowing you to build your forces anyway you want and we shouldn't be changing that philosophy.
We just spend a lot of time reading how many people would like an alternative to the 'snowballs of doom' cores that are the most efficient and economical of all types. And you just stated (previous quote) that you do not want a certain type of core punished (or favoured, looked at from the other side - same difference). So in my opinion, your arguments do not (fully) support your conclusion. All other types of core are being 'punished' compared to the snowballs as of now. (same as deducter, editing in)
I'm trying to think of something that will still allow people to field some big OS units or have a 'bunch of average ones' or anything in between without favouring a very narrow type of core composition. So there won't be a 'perfect' core, or a 'typical' one, and players can spend their well-earned prestige as they like, they can squander it on keeping fleets of Tigers rumbling around, or be a bit more frugal and operate a big core with cheaper, but still experienced amd effective units which can be replaced at low cost, and they can afford to take some expensive stuff onboard if they are doing well.
It encourages experimenting with core setups, and will give a bit more depth to the supply system. I hope that people would feel more rewarded by this sort of system, instead of defaulting to the top units, wait until they are experienced, upgrade them to the best in class, and then just hammer T-34's all day long.
This game is so successful because it is easy to play and allows people to build the forces they want to build. If you start changing that you aren't going to have the same kind of game anymore and I think that is a very bad thing.
But as it is now, I can build my semi-historical core and get hammered in the field, and see my core evaporate after 1944. Not much fun. Or I could be smart, pick the best units and go on a rampage, and end up swimming in prestige that I'll never need because my units are almost invincible. Not much of a choice, I think.
I don't want to force my playing style on other people, but when even the devs start asking for suggestions to re-balance the prestige/experience system, well, I'm just trying to help out. Of course we have to accept that the game forces people to adhere to a certain minimum standard when it comes to fielding forces. For example, you can't play the whole game with the core you start with in 1939 or with only airplanes or whatever. But the current system rewards a single type of core over others, at least that is the problem we are trying to solve in this thread. And I've seen many good suggestions, and your support for better scenario/AI design is very commendable, but I got the impression that something else was being asked for, and yes, I know that introducing maintenance/supply costs will be controversial, but I think it provides an answer (note: not 'the' answer) to some of the problems.