Thanks for replying but I might have failed to make my point clear.Rudankort wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:25 pmDifferent players have different preferences. Many people don't want to take any chances and in fact get annoyed when they miss a certain cool unit in their campaign. This is exactly the reason why topics like this exist. This approach is also not so good from replayability perspective, because you always get the same thing on every play through. Ultimately, many people like captured units because they like to have something cool and unique in their cores.
Forcing the enemy to surrender is not equal to "go soft" on him, and no sane commander would insist on fighting and taking losses when he could avoid it and still defeat the opposing enemy force.
There will be enough random events in the new game (in particular, heroes clearly fall into this category). In any event, nothing is set in stone, and we will keep watching player's feedback. Also, this feature will likely be optional, so you can turn it off if you don't like it.
You wrote "Captured units in Panzer Corps campaigns were so popular, we’ve decided to make them a part of core game mechanics. When you force enemy unit to surrender, its equipment is captured and added to a pool."
That is not adding what was so popular to the game. That is taking the name of a popular feature and applying it to some other new feature. To me that is a logical fallacy. It wasn't the name that was popular, it was the "treasure hunt", the unexpected lottery win that was popular.
In this regard, my objection is not to your new game feature. My objection is when you say you're adding it because "captured units were popular".
Then you write: "Later you can use this pool to create new units or replenish existing ones for free. This adds yet another tactical consideration: shall I destroy this unit, or try to make it surrender instead?"
As a second, separate, concern, please don't make us want to suppress Tiger tanks or good Soviet self-propelled artillery in order to capture the equipment (when playing US and German commanders, respectively). I genuinely think that's a bad idea - to view enemy units as possible loot boxes.
I strongly encourage you to not add this as some generic play mechanism, always available (and adding a global switch to turn it off isn't enough).
I realize what you want to address are the random nature of the original implementation. I totally get gamers want to "collect them all". This is most easily fixed by marking "loot hexes" on the map - take this hex, capture that unit.
But please do not let us select what we loot ourselves - that misses the point of suddenly getting some quaint French tank or some slow russian AT. The only way to balance this is by YOU (the scenario designer) selecting what unit that will be capturable.
And pretty please do not implement this in a way that makes us minmax how we deal with elite SS Waffen Tiger 2 tanks just to be able to drive them tanks ourselves. That to me feels entirely unrealistic (unless we're talking about tanks/planes in storage, like when Hitler got thise Czech tanks - or, I guess, capital ship naval units). Whatever you make it, please don't make it into a core feature that you take into account when balancing the game.
Thank you for listening.