Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

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

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

smashtheaxis
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:55 pm

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by smashtheaxis » Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:42 am

- show small icon of unit contained in a transport, maybe on top right corner of the hex. In scenarios with a large invasion fleet, you have to hover over every embarked unit to see what it actually is
- include maps with nation flags in briefings. I really miss the map animations from PG/AG before every scenario, which gave an idea where the current battle is taking place and who is involved
- German units becoming obsolete after 1945 prevents what-if scenarios set in 1946. Maybe expand their lifespan?

KeldorKatarn
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by KeldorKatarn » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:43 am

captainjack wrote:- the ability to check combat results during enemy attacks would be useful. At the moment, it is very hit and miss which combat result you get and while viewing combat results, enemy attacks continue so you lose information by trying to understand what is going on. If this means you have to click to proceed after each enemy attack, you could make it a start up screen option to avoid annoying people who don't want it.
For this I suggest implementing a RPG title style "combat log". RPGs like Knights of the Old Republic (the first one, not the MMO, I'M not sure if the MMO also has it), had a special window that could be opened containing ALL combat information including every combat roll etc. Maybe one could change the current combat log window. When opening it it will show the last battle result (or predicted battle result depending on how it was opened) with a header "Next battle" "Predicted battle" and below that, accessible with a scrollbar, "Previous battles" when all battles of the game can be viewed. I don't think it'll cost too much memory to save all this data as a string. Might be difficult to implement saving it into the savegame, but I think we'd all benefit already if it was just logging since the last save/scenario start for now and maybe saves it for later in case one saves mid-scenario. That way if you play a scenario in one go people would have HUGE amounts of data for that scenario and I'm sure someone could come up with some pretty cool data analysis based on that and we'd get cool threads here about how different units perform. All you'd have to do is extrend the string buffer for that window, make it scrollable, and instead of discarding old battle information, just append the new information at the front. That way you can also analyse every enemy turn battle you want after the AI turn is over. Might include a bit of scrolling to find it, but hey...

Of course it'd be VERY cool if this also works in the replay player. Then even if you missed the data while playing, you can replay the game and get the data that way. Would be awesome if that log could be saved as a text file too. :)
Panzer Corps - Dossier Tool - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=39151
Epic Chronological Let's Play - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb_qLVfViPTbD7C7gN8cVOxG_mEgDYO91

GSlapshot
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by GSlapshot » Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:09 pm

Adding the Core + SE units count to the iPad like it is shown on the PC version for the deployment phase. You now must count core and SE units and figure out what is available for purchase

McGuba
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by McGuba » Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:35 pm

1. ROF (Rate of Fire) value of units should be displayed within the game (preferable on the unit info screen)
2. Unit traits (such as bridge engineer or alpine) should be displayed within the game (preferable on the unit info screen), with short explanation when hovering the mouse over it
3. Hero and experience bonuses should be more visible, possibly added after the base unit stats as +1, +2, etc, or as red numerals, or at least displayed when hovering the mouse over a unit
4. Low fuel indicator for naval units
5. More AI zones for sure! For a start 64 would be nice.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969

KeldorKatarn
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by KeldorKatarn » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:45 pm

McGuba wrote:3. Hero and experience bonuses should be more visible, possibly added after the base unit stats as +1, +2, etc, or as red numerals, or at least displayed when hovering the mouse over a unit
Hovering or +1 etc can only work in the unit overview. Especially in the unit comparison bar there have to be values that already include all bonuses. OTherwise that comparison bar is useless.
Panzer Corps - Dossier Tool - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=39151
Epic Chronological Let's Play - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb_qLVfViPTbD7C7gN8cVOxG_mEgDYO91

braccada
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:58 pm
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by braccada » Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:41 am

Some good suggestions already, I would like to second some and discuss others:

1. I was thinking about a changed reinforcement system, too. Maybe something along those lines: Elite replacements at 2 star level, green at 0 star level and the option to buy elite units from the start. This would be more realistic and punish losses more. Weaker players would be supported by the option to buy elite units. Not sure how to deal with early maps, because they should not have elite units (no option to buy them on certain maps?) and possibilty to elite reinforce inexperienced units at the start (maybe elite reinforcement is equal exp but maxed at 2 stars).
2. Nerf the Humber scout car. That unit is ridiculous!
3. Towed AT support fire is an intersting idea. The AI usually has plenty of them though and that might break the time limit for some maps. Especially in the Wehrmacht campaign you find cities ringed with AT guns and I am sure that will make some missions too difficult.
4. Limit the availabilty of equipment like early Tigers. Maybe like suggested by increasing cost or a hard limit that increases over time.
5. Motorcycle unit: Isn't it too strong in 1939? With recon movement I would probably field an army of tanks and motorcycles.
Follow my Grand Let's Play series: Rommel, Manstein and Guderian
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=53035

Rag116
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by Rag116 » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:21 am

I have a hard time getting mods to work right. So maybe you can make Mods available through steam's workshop which is a lot easier to input them just subscribe or unsubscribe the mod you want and its done.
Also the unit surrender thing due to bombardment or replacement i think needs to be toned down some, full units surrendering doesn't make scene.
Not sure why Tiger I have a lower attack factor than the Panther in the game Tigers had the 88 while the Panthers had the 75 mounted.

adiekmann
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:47 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by adiekmann » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:04 pm

Rag116 wrote:I have a hard time getting mods to work right. So maybe you can make Mods available through steam's workshop which is a lot easier to input them just subscribe or unsubscribe the mod you want and its done.
Also the unit surrender thing due to bombardment or replacement i think needs to be toned down some, full units surrendering doesn't make scene.
Not sure why Tiger I have a lower attack factor than the Panther in the game Tigers had the 88 while the Panthers had the 75 mounted.
The Panther's 75 mm gun was a higher velocity weapon and in testing (and practice) its armor penetration was significantly superior to the 88. It wasn't the same gun as equipped the Mk.IV tanks. The 88 fired obviously a larger shell, however, so its HE rounds packed more punch and that probably explains why the SA is slightly higher than the panther's.

KeldorKatarn
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by KeldorKatarn » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:05 pm

braccada wrote:Some good suggestions already, I would like to second some and discuss others:

1. I was thinking about a changed reinforcement system, too. Maybe something along those lines: Elite replacements at 2 star level, green at 0 star level and the option to buy elite units from the start. This would be more realistic and punish losses more. Weaker players would be supported by the option to buy elite units. Not sure how to deal with early maps, because they should not have elite units (no option to buy them on certain maps?) and possibilty to elite reinforce inexperienced units at the start (maybe elite reinforcement is equal exp but maxed at 2 stars).
I already suggested a Ctrl Click for a single point of reinforcement during the game. In the purchase screen one could possibly add a UI that allows buying the units with higher XP, increasing the cost. I think that should be limited at 2 stars however. Or maybe limited by game year or something. It would have to be tested so people can't simply buy high XP units that unbalance everything. But especially in later war years experienced replacements should be possible at least to SOME degree. Buying 5 star units should not be possible I think. Or maybe put a slider in the advanced options menu where the player can decide what the maximum allowed XP for buying is. I think that's best for everybody.
2. Nerf the Humber scout car. That unit is ridiculous!
Agreed. From watching the videos that unit is ridiculously strong against same-era tanks.
3. Towed AT support fire is an intersting idea. The AI usually has plenty of them though and that might break the time limit for some maps. Especially in the Wehrmacht campaign you find cities ringed with AT guns and I am sure that will make some missions too difficult.
Well if it's just that then let's make a small beta test. Let's do this, testplay some difficult scenarios in the game that we know have a tough turn limit. And if we notice we can't pull it off, the devs can add a turn or two more. I think that was already done with the USA East Coast scenario which was near impossible to get a decisive victory on. I don't think this will be an issue for most scenarios. I mean consider this: most places where this is the case is near cities. You wouldn't necessarily attack those entrenched cities with tanks anyway. And if AT only supports against tanks, then infantry can do exactly what it did before. And even against tanks it shouldn't be too tough if the support fire is limited to one defense per turn like e.g. fighters. But since this IS indeed the biggest game balance impact but also has the biggest potential for cool new tactical stuff, I suggest a small beta test for this feature. We could also introduce defensive fire for destroyers vs subs and the feature that subs can't fire back when attacked by destroyers. Implement all of those in a testpatch, make a small beta and let the most experienced players have a go and see how it goes. Maybe some of the experienced scenario designers can also look at the tutorial campaign and maybe adjust that a bit so it also explains the new features. Probably not tough to do, just a trigger for a message more here and there. If this is a fun feature I think it's worth testing before we dismiss it, considering the potential benefit for gameplay and core diversity.
4. Limit the availabilty of equipment like early Tigers. Maybe like suggested by increasing cost or a hard limit that increases over time.
This is tough. First of all... which units? If anything this should be done by making them more expensive. Otherwise introducing special code just for a number of units... the rarity of units has always been represented by their prestige cost. And if a player plays so well that he can afford 5 Tigers I think they should be allowed to have them. Anybody who thinks that's not historical can always play with private rules and stick to them. Casual players simply like fielding Tigers and I think it'd be bad to force them not to. If it's too easy to buy them, yeah maybe increase the cost and nerf them that way. But the Tigers are not ideal tanks to begin with, they have their downsides and trying to play with just Tigers makes you lose anyway I think. So if anything this should be optional, but I think increasing the prestige cost is enough.
5. Motorcycle unit: Isn't it too strong in 1939? With recon movement I would probably field an army of tanks and motorcycles.
Well let's test it. I fielded some in my playthroughs. Yes maybe they unbalance things if fielded in large numbers. So what? If that's the case, nerf them a bit. Their real life era was 1936-1941. After 1941 the Panzer Divisions slowly phased them out or turned them into regular armored scout units. To allow for that I'd suggest turn them into a switchable units like the sahariana, make the MAIN (purchasable) unit a recon, so one can upgrade the thing later to other scout units, nerf its combat power a bit, maybe make it comparable to the sahariana except always a soft target. That way you'd have to approach, then switch to infantry mode, then attack, unless you want to run into close defense issues in close terrain. That alone would nerf it's usefulness already. Maybe make it a slightly weaker Wehrmacht infantry in infantry mode and in scout mode a decent soft target scout with recon movement. I think that should be balanced enough. And let's face it. If we don't introduce it in 1939 it's nearly useless in most campaigns. Yes it's speed is useful in Africa, but there it should be comparable to the Sahariana, not be a super-infantry. And in Russia the thing get's shredded after 1941, so it's useless after Barbarossa starts and needs to be phased out (as historically). If the Grand Campaign it becomes only available in 1941. Who will buy another green infantry unit that doesn't have recon movement and will only become terribly exposed if it uses it's speed in 1941? Nobody. But that's when it is available. In Poland it at least has some uses and then you could later upgrade it to a regular armored recon unit.
If it's too strong in 1939, nerf it slightly and make it less effective against other infantry by forcing it to switch back to infantry first and make it vulnerable in its scout mode. That way it's less effective on the attack but can still defend if it has the time to switch and will be a cool alternative scout unit. A lot of nations have switchable recon units now. Germany is now lacking a ton of cool unit types. Germany doesn't have a scout place AND no switchable recon. I think it's time to fix this. I know someone even had already a finished icon for the dismounted Kradschützen somewhere. Just use that officially and make it a switchable recon and we're golden, and it will still be effective in Africa Corps, just like the Sahariana, which is very useful in that campaign.
Panzer Corps - Dossier Tool - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=39151
Epic Chronological Let's Play - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb_qLVfViPTbD7C7gN8cVOxG_mEgDYO91

KeldorKatarn
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by KeldorKatarn » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:08 pm

adiekmann wrote:
Rag116 wrote:Not sure why Tiger I have a lower attack factor than the Panther in the game Tigers had the 88 while the Panthers had the 75 mounted.
The Panther's 75 mm gun was a higher velocity weapon and in testing (and practice) its armor penetration was significantly superior to the 88. It wasn't the same gun as equipped the Mk.IV tanks. The 88 fired obviously a larger shell, however, so its HE rounds packed more punch and that probably explains why the SA is slightly higher than the panther's.
Agreed. The values are perfectly fine. THe Tiger's 8.8 has a good reputation of course, but in reality the Panther had a much better gun in terms of Anti-Tank capability. The HE shell was better on the Tiger due to the size yes, but tank vs tank the Panther had better range and better penetration which is why it's gun or variations was used on all the tank destroyers also. The tank destroyers didn't use the 8.8. So I think the game values are perfect. The only gun value that doesn't make any sense is the hard attack of the Jagdtiger.
Panzer Corps - Dossier Tool - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=39151
Epic Chronological Let's Play - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb_qLVfViPTbD7C7gN8cVOxG_mEgDYO91

adiekmann
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:47 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by adiekmann » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:57 pm

KeldorKatarn wrote:
adiekmann wrote:
Rag116 wrote:Not sure why Tiger I have a lower attack factor than the Panther in the game Tigers had the 88 while the Panthers had the 75 mounted.
The Panther's 75 mm gun was a higher velocity weapon and in testing (and practice) its armor penetration was significantly superior to the 88. It wasn't the same gun as equipped the Mk.IV tanks. The 88 fired obviously a larger shell, however, so its HE rounds packed more punch and that probably explains why the SA is slightly higher than the panther's.
Agreed. The values are perfectly fine. THe Tiger's 8.8 has a good reputation of course, but in reality the Panther had a much better gun in terms of Anti-Tank capability. The HE shell was better on the Tiger due to the size yes, but tank vs tank the Panther had better range and better penetration which is why it's gun or variations was used on all the tank destroyers also. The tank destroyers didn't use the 8.8. So I think the game values are perfect. The only gun value that doesn't make any sense is the hard attack of the Jagdtiger.
Some German tank destroyers did use the 88, like the Jagdpanther and Nashorn, but it was the KwK 43 L/71, not the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 used on the Tiger I. The KwK 43 L/71 was the same gun that equipped the Tiger II. It was hands down the most powerful AT gun of the war and was huge, 6.24 m (20.5 ft) long! Caliber of gun is the most overrated aspect concerning a gun's AT performance. Muzzle velocity and type of AT shell is more important. Same is true with the British 17-pounder AT gun. It too was "only" a 76mm caliber weapon similar to the Panther's and had a very high muzzle velocity.

KeldorKatarn
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by KeldorKatarn » Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:08 pm

Yes but we were talking about the Tiger's 8.8, not the long version.
Panzer Corps - Dossier Tool - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=39151
Epic Chronological Let's Play - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb_qLVfViPTbD7C7gN8cVOxG_mEgDYO91

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

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by Razz1 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:38 am

I believe this is a bug:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 11#p614911

I know I have had an issue with flags a countries not showing up properly when compared to the equipment file listing as countries. I think it begins around country 30.

Any way I can repeat the bug listed above.

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

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by Razz1 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:48 am

adiekmann wrote:
Razz1 wrote:
b52pilot1 wrote:My recommendations are for the US Corps DLCs:

2) Do not show minor nations units available for purchase. You cannot purchase any of the minor nations' units, so why are they even visible (sometimes a minor nation's units are the default displayed units).
Actually, you can make the units available. There's a trick in scenario design.
There is a work around in Allied Corps too, but then I discovered that my core Australian units, for instance, couldn't capture victory locations in scenarios where they weren't otherwise featured. Yes, they would capture the flag, but then I would receive a loss because it didn't recognize that flag! It required a unit that would cause a Union Jack to appear on the victory hex instead. This surprise annoyance ruined my work around for all practical purposes.
that's because there is one more parameter that is not filled.

It's the Campaign file.

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

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by Razz1 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:55 am

For small AT units I have already made the adjustment in the Total Realism mod.

Works great! Does not wreck balance of campaign.

Move two hexes
Any terrain (Why? Because they are carried by 3 to six men.)
Some can not be spotted so the enemy can run into them for an ambush. Excellent in MP games.

They will still loose their usefulness quickly due to Tanks getting better, but then you have experience and can upgrade to larger AT units.

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

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by Razz1 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:59 am

KeldorKatarn wrote:
adiekmann wrote:
Rag116 wrote:Not sure why Tiger I have a lower attack factor than the Panther in the game Tigers had the 88 while the Panthers had the 75 mounted.
The Panther's 75 mm gun was a higher velocity weapon and in testing (and practice) its armor penetration was significantly superior to the 88. It wasn't the same gun as equipped the Mk.IV tanks. The 88 fired obviously a larger shell, however, so its HE rounds packed more punch and that probably explains why the SA is slightly higher than the panther's.
Agreed. The values are perfectly fine. THe Tiger's 8.8 has a good reputation of course, but in reality the Panther had a much better gun in terms of Anti-Tank capability. The HE shell was better on the Tiger due to the size yes, but tank vs tank the Panther had better range and better penetration which is why it's gun or variations was used on all the tank destroyers also. The tank destroyers didn't use the 8.8. So I think the game values are perfect. The only gun value that doesn't make any sense is the hard attack of the Jagdtiger.
I agree Tiger I is fine.

braccada
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:58 pm
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by braccada » Thu Jul 14, 2016 10:28 am

KeldorKatarn wrote: I already suggested a Ctrl Click for a single point of reinforcement during the game. In the purchase screen one could possibly add a UI that allows buying the units with higher XP, increasing the cost. I think that should be limited at 2 stars however. Or maybe limited by game year or something. It would have to be tested so people can't simply buy high XP units that unbalance everything. But especially in later war years experienced replacements should be possible at least to SOME degree. Buying 5 star units should not be possible I think. Or maybe put a slider in the advanced options menu where the player can decide what the maximum allowed XP for buying is. I think that's best for everybody.
It was meant that way. Option to purchase 2 star units. And elite replacements limited to 2 or 3 stars as well. The idea is that your 4 to 5 star units are elite and if the get destroyed with just a few men surviving they should suffer. There is no way you just send new men and it is like nothing happened. That is just an idea, did not test it.
KeldorKatarn wrote: Well if it's just that then let's make a small beta test. Let's do this, testplay some difficult scenarios in the game that we know have a tough turn limit. And if we notice we can't pull it off, the devs can add a turn or two more. I think that was already done with the USA East Coast scenario which was near impossible to get a decisive victory on. I don't think this will be an issue for most scenarios. I mean consider this: most places where this is the case is near cities. You wouldn't necessarily attack those entrenched cities with tanks anyway. And if AT only supports against tanks, then infantry can do exactly what it did before. And even against tanks it shouldn't be too tough if the support fire is limited to one defense per turn like e.g. fighters. But since this IS indeed the biggest game balance impact but also has the biggest potential for cool new tactical stuff, I suggest a small beta test for this feature. We could also introduce defensive fire for destroyers vs subs and the feature that subs can't fire back when attacked by destroyers. Implement all of those in a testpatch, make a small beta and let the most experienced players have a go and see how it goes. Maybe some of the experienced scenario designers can also look at the tutorial campaign and maybe adjust that a bit so it also explains the new features. Probably not tough to do, just a trigger for a message more here and there. If this is a fun feature I think it's worth testing before we dismiss it, considering the potential benefit for gameplay and core diversity.
Like I said, I like the idea. I am not so worried about prepared defenses, the Wehrmacht campaign unit spam AI might be an issue and especially less experienced players will have troubles. For example France or Low Countries have a tight turn limit and in the end you reach the last city with Panzer IVs. Most ofen there are AT guns with AA and artillery mixed in and suppressing one more target before attacking might be too much. Still I am all for it and happy to test!
KeldorKatarn wrote: This is tough. First of all... which units? If anything this should be done by making them more expensive. Otherwise introducing special code just for a number of units... the rarity of units has always been represented by their prestige cost. And if a player plays so well that he can afford 5 Tigers I think they should be allowed to have them. Anybody who thinks that's not historical can always play with private rules and stick to them. Casual players simply like fielding Tigers and I think it'd be bad to force them not to. If it's too easy to buy them, yeah maybe increase the cost and nerf them that way. But the Tigers are not ideal tanks to begin with, they have their downsides and trying to play with just Tigers makes you lose anyway I think. So if anything this should be optional, but I think increasing the prestige cost is enough.
I still like the idea. Prestige cost I think is too dependend on player skill and therefore very hard to balance. Even on Rommel I can afford an all FW air force, but making them even more expensive will disrupt many players. So having only 1 or 2 available in the beginning makes them more precious. You can still switch to all out Tigers or FW later, but it would dampen the possible progress for everyone. Maybe it is a better way to balance the game than the soft cap, which tries to achieve the same result. But I agree that is not for a small patch, just an idea.
KeldorKatarn wrote: Well let's test it. I fielded some in my playthroughs. Yes maybe they unbalance things if fielded in large numbers. So what? If that's the case, nerf them a bit. Their real life era was 1936-1941. After 1941 the Panzer Divisions slowly phased them out or turned them into regular armored scout units. To allow for that I'd suggest turn them into a switchable units like the sahariana, make the MAIN (purchasable) unit a recon, so one can upgrade the thing later to other scout units, nerf its combat power a bit, maybe make it comparable to the sahariana except always a soft target. That way you'd have to approach, then switch to infantry mode, then attack, unless you want to run into close defense issues in close terrain. That alone would nerf it's usefulness already. Maybe make it a slightly weaker Wehrmacht infantry in infantry mode and in scout mode a decent soft target scout with recon movement. I think that should be balanced enough. And let's face it. If we don't introduce it in 1939 it's nearly useless in most campaigns. Yes it's speed is useful in Africa, but there it should be comparable to the Sahariana, not be a super-infantry. And in Russia the thing get's shredded after 1941, so it's useless after Barbarossa starts and needs to be phased out (as historically). If the Grand Campaign it becomes only available in 1941. Who will buy another green infantry unit that doesn't have recon movement and will only become terribly exposed if it uses it's speed in 1941? Nobody. But that's when it is available. In Poland it at least has some uses and then you could later upgrade it to a regular armored recon unit.
If it's too strong in 1939, nerf it slightly and make it less effective against other infantry by forcing it to switch back to infantry first and make it vulnerable in its scout mode. That way it's less effective on the attack but can still defend if it has the time to switch and will be a cool alternative scout unit. A lot of nations have switchable recon units now. Germany is now lacking a ton of cool unit types. Germany doesn't have a scout place AND no switchable recon. I think it's time to fix this. I know someone even had already a finished icon for the dismounted Kradschützen somewhere. Just use that officially and make it a switchable recon and we're golden, and it will still be effective in Africa Corps, just like the Sahariana, which is very useful in that campaign.
Agreed
Follow my Grand Let's Play series: Rommel, Manstein and Guderian
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=53035

ThvN
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by ThvN » Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:21 am

Besides any new features are added, it might be nice to see some of the still remaining issues fixed. I posted most of these a while ago during a beta test, I did not see any mention of them or any fixes during the latest version, so I'll repost them here. Most of them are very minor issues, but some might be solved very easily. Sorry for the long-winded explanations, some are not easily described in few words. Strange fact: I'm posting this while listening to a live broadcast of the coup attempt in Turkey. Anyway...

Railway overlay bug:

Reported by members Zjorz & Cortilein: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 46&t=70671
The autogenerated railroads contain a wrong overlay. After looking trought the list its clear that somehow the right overlay got replaced by a different one. If you look it up, the overlay is in the list twice.

Tile #38 is wrong. There should only be the straight rail line from NW to SE, blended together with a curved line from N to SE. The correct tile for the one shown in the middle of your screenshot is tile #46 (comparing this to the Road tiles counterparts).
Missing US SE unit:

The US SE Airborne unit does not have a '43 version. I was awarded one but there is no '43 equivalent, so I upgraded it into a SE Ranger unit instead. Either a '43 could be added or the stats of the SE Airborne made equivalent of the British SAS unit.

Minor issue with aircraft spotting during bad weather:

During rain/snow/sandstorms, planes can't attack each other, and they normally can't spot each other or anything on the ground. Ground units can still spot airplanes, however. I knew that you could still be 'intercepted' if you accidently moved through another unseen airplane or if you moved to a hex next to it. This shows the plane you bumped into although you shouldn't be able to spot it with your aircraft. This seems to be a moment that the spotting isn't updated correctly, but it might be necessary game-wise to prevent two airplanes occupying the same hex or something, I don't know.

But if you wait another turn, that plane you bumped into turns invisble again if it is outside spotting range. Because your plane shouldn't be able to spot them, the aircraft dissappears from view. It should still be visible to ground units, so it won't dissappear when a ground unit is in spotting range. OK, but I have noticed something buggy when an airplane is completely surrounded during bad weather.

Suppose one of your planes is surrounded, and you can see the other aircraft with one of your ground units, so you cannot move through them to escape. But if you move the ground unit(s) away, the next turn the spotting is updated an even if your plane is still surrounded they won't be visible anymore, and you can move away. So if you want to prevent a surounded AI plane from escaping, make sure the AI can spot all your planes with its own units. Vice versa, if you need to escape you need to move your ground unit out of spotting range (during bad weather spotting is 1 for ground units, so its easy to estimate).


There is an issue (‘feature’?) with bombers being intercepted by fighters during cloudy weather:

Background: during cloudy weather air-to-air combat is unaffected, but air-to-ground attacks use only half the strength of the units involved.
When weather is cloudy, a bomber that attacks a ground target that is covered by a fighter will be intercepted (by the fighter plane) by a full strength attack, as it should. But all those kills/suppression are subtracted from the half-strength attack the bomber subsequently makes vs. the ground target. So instead of being subtracted from the full 10-str and that result being halved, such attacks are now next to useless because they are substracted from the already halved bomber strength.

Interception by bombers escorted by fighters:

Normally, when you fly a fighter and are being surprised (ambushed) by an air unit with passive [x] anti-air attack (like a level bomber), nothing happens, even when it is escorted by an enemy fighter.

But when you are being surprised by a fighter bomber (= tac bomber with normal air attack, like Bf110 / Typhoon) any escorting fighter will fire at your surprised fighter, and then an ‘unexpected encounter’ happens vs. the fighter bomber. So you take two attacks in this case, but none when the ambusher has [x] air attack? The difference between these situations is not very logical: if you would attack the bomber normally, the escort would fire and you would face the passive [x] attack of the bomber, so why doesn't this happen if a fighter is surprised by an escorted bomber?

Bombers can attack Victory Hexes although sometimes these attacks are invalid.

Strategic bombers can attack empty victory hexes, but they will only reduce prestige if those hexes are in cities/airports. So the attack will literally have no effect (empty combat log).

Another minor 'bug' reported by member Proline: strategic bombers can attack an enemy flag occupied by one of your own support units- i.e. AA or artillery, and destroy that flag and enemy prestige while dealing zero friendly fire.


Small issues during campaign play:

Aux units with the ‘Unique’ marker (this means they will appear in subsequent scenario unless destroyed) will carry over if they are disbanded by the player. If destroyed by enemy action they do not carry over, as it should. Not really a bug but an interesting exploit.

Air units that are lost due to lack of fuel are not available for reform during the next deployment fase.

In the case of special hero Rudel, if the first version is killed and reformed, it will no longer trigger the new Rudel to appear during 1941. So it seems during reform the name set in the editor is somehow reset although it still shows the correct one in the UI.


Some minor features/issues with little or no impact on the stock game:

Artillery that fires at a ground unit gets mass a attack bonus (which of course will have no effect).

A unit with a Rate of Fire less than 10 will still be able to attack even when it has only 1 strength, but the RoF will round the number of attacks down to 0, wasting that attack. It would be nice to always have a minimum of one attack or something else, or not allowing such attacks.


Some minor features/issues only present with modded files.

When using the ranged attack modifier (for artillery etc.) in mods it is possible to engage a target although that attack will be at 0 or negative strength due to long range; similar to the RoF giving 0 attacks above.

When you attack a submarine with an aircraft, and you have modded the sub to have an air attack, the sub will fire against the Close Defense of the aircraft. (should be ground defense I suppose).

The AI cannot use switchable aircraft. It can switch ground units & naval units without problems, but not air units. But its behaviour with switchable aircraft is a bit odd as well, I get the impression the AI does 'see' the switch modes and is selecting targets while assuming it is using a switched mode, but the air unit isn't actually switched at all. This is because I occasionally saw air units without ground attack (in cases where the switch version had it) move directly over ground units and do nothing although other viable targets where available. To be honest, this bug is a bit of a personal frustration of mine, because I had planned a mod using switchable aircraft that had 'high' and 'low' flying versions, but had to abandon it after I found this little bug.

Like I said, most of these issues are quite minor but some are quite annoying.




Wishlist

With regards to a wishlist, it's a big one but most are too far-fetched for a simple patch. Some ideas/wishes can be found here http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 21&t=71989 but for a more complete list:


Air unit movement:

- Air units should follow the movement path indicated by the arrow: at the moment they will move in a straight line, leading to unpredictable intercepts because it can be too hard too tell if they will cross an unspotted hex that you want to avoid.


Unit stats

- A slight GD nerf for the new jeep-like recon units like Uran21 announced. This means the Willys Jeep, GAZ-67B and M3A1 Scout car.

- Make Horse Transports available for other nations (Germany, 'minor' nations)

- The Sahariana and Chevy WB (scout units), SdKfz 7 and Voroshilovets (transports) should be 'Soft' target type. All are now 'Hard' type which doesn't make sense as all are unarmoured truck-like vehicles.

- Please make the German Ta152H an in-family upgrade of the Fw190A and Fw190D. The Ta152H had more in common with the Fw190D than the Fw190D with the Fw190A.


Game/Combat rules:

- The softcap needs a little tuning; at the moment I'm hesitant to suggest any values but I will be willing to devote time to experiment with them.

- Some experience bonuses (in exp.pzdat) might need a little tuning as well. I feel the 200% bonus for Air Attack for AA and especially fighters is a bit much. I started with some altered values but have no conclusive testing results as yet because I've been on holidays and have only just returned.

- Initiative cap should add any initiative hero bonus last, to prevent the Weather cap from nullifying this bonus when it is most important. In similar vein, it would be nice to be able to change the random Initiative bonus during combats. Either in the gamerules file or an on/off setting in the difficulty options. The 'dice chess' already turns it off so this should not be difficult to implement I guess.

- During ambushes, the unit that does the ambusing receives +4 Defense, and the ambushed units initiative is set to zero. It might be more useful to increase the attack of the unit that does the ambushing instead of their defense. As it is now, when ambushed by a much inferior unit they will just miss with every dice roll and the ambush is no more dangerous than a regular combat. If the attack value of the ambushing unit is increased an inferior unit will be better able to inflict damage, which is the whole point of an ambush.

- The submarine AA bug gave me an idea: Instead of a fixed low-level attack penalty, why not give air units a Close Defense value that is used during low level attacks and maybe 'Sudden Encounters' as well. For the stock setting the CD can be just the current AD minus the current -5 penalty, but some heavily armoured aircraft could be slightly better. Something similar could be used in naval engagements; give naval units a Close Defense value and use that if they are ambushed on the surface or attacked by submarines.

- I have had a long-standing idea that artillery would be better balanced if each additional defending barrage in a single turn was weaker than the previous one. Perhaps by means of suppression: each time it fires a point of suppression is added to the arty unit, so it will become less effective with each shot.


UI:

- More transport overlays: now there are only truck/halftrack, but there are many more types of movement that were introduced.

- Show the RoF and hero bonuses in the unit statistics.


Class bonuses: (see thread linked above for better explanation)

I think a lot can be improved by simply making existing class abilities into separate traits: you could finally get rid of the AT-class +3 ini bonus for turreted AT vehicles an instead finally use the 'fixedt/rott' traits for (non-)turreted vehicles, also other class abilities could be used out-of-class for other units. Look at what happened when the former-class-ability 'reconmove' and 'captureflag' traits were added to be used for everything, that was a big success in my view. For example, something new like a separate 'counter-battery' trait that is now only used by naval units to shoot at each other during ranged combat would be nice.




To add to all this, as a moderator I have seen repeated requests on the forum for the following features:

- All PC version features made available in the iOS version. (often mentioned and I think this is very important)

- Point-for-point unit strength reinforcements instead of all or nothing.

- Show RoF and hero bonuses in UI.

- Built-in mod support instead of GME.

- More zones available for use with the editor.

- Multiplayer ladder/league system.

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

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by Razz1 » Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:51 pm

I played the USA Corps campaigns and the Tortoise is too fast. Should be 3 movement. That may effect game balance too much, but 4 would be okay and you can still meet your objectives.

Change Tortoise tank to movement 4.

Akkula
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:14 am

Re: Panzer Corps Priorities - Your Opinions

Post by Akkula » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:48 am

Scenario Editor
- Increase the zones limit. 32 is so few, especially for big scenarios, I think 64 could work but more will be welcome too of course.
- Option to add descriptions or titles to the triggers, just like the old StarCraft map editor. Right now is a nightmare to find one if you are working in a big scripted scenario.
- Chance to add copy/edit options to edit triggers or content of the them.
- Ability to create "triggers condition groups" shortcut to units spawn. This would save A LOT of time and peace of mind for the modders in big scenarios.
- Option to add descriptions or titles to the tags.
- Undo option for terrain editing

Game
- I already asked (a month ago) to the developer team some new traits (I hope they havent forgotten me)
- Dont allow the strategic bombers to refuel at aircraft carriers.
I will list my traits request, just in case:
- Submarines can attack another submarines
- Submarines can be attacked by another submarine
Eastern Front: Soviet Storm (v1.96): http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=50342
Modern Conflicts (v1.1): http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=72062

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”