Looking ahead to Patch 5

[PoorOldSpike]

Patch 4 (v 1.1.1) is magnificent, but to help the darling devs I just thought we could post suggestions in this thread what we'd like to see in a future Patch 5.
Here's a few of my ideas-

A "Summer or Winter" option in the Random mission generator so that we can choose to play in a white winter wonderland.
Aircraft would of course be grounded on random blizzard turns.
Major and minor rivers would be frozen and easily crossable.

A "Light/ Medium/ Heavy terrain density" option in the generator so we could select 'Light' to simulate battles on open steppes etc with relatively few rivers, forests, hiils, mountains, swamps etc;
or select 'Medium' for typical default rolling terrain;
or select 'Heavy' to simulate rugged terrain like the Ardennes or Italian mountains etc.

A "Desert Map" option in the generator so we could simulate North African battles in sandy terrain.

An "Aircraft on/off" toggle key so we could temporarily remove friendly and enemy planes from the map to see what's underneath them.
It'd be especially useful if many planes are cluttering the map in a certain area.
Also, by repeatedly hitting the key a few times the planes would blink on and off, helping us to see exactly where they are.

A "Range rings" option so that when we mouse over friendly and enemy ranged units their red range ring would appear, letting us quickly see their range.
Alternatively, let there be a hotkey that we can hit to toggle all range rings on/off.

Map edge hexes should only be supply sources along one edge, for example in Russia only the west edge could supply the Germans, and only the east edge could supply the Russians.

Create a new "Security unit type" for all nations which would be cheap to buy, have only a '5' maximum strength, and cost only 1 slot so that we could station them to guard sensitive spots like airfields, bridges and road junctions etc to prevent the enemy from walking in unopposed.

[Horseman]

I like most of your suggestions.

Only one needs a tweak - the map edges one probably needs to be an option to switch on or off. But even then the devs would need to go back over almost all the scenarios (campaign and stand alone) for balance tweaks. Some missions would become a lot harder (and some a lot easier)

But I am a big fan of the idea in general. Just need to bare in mind it's not always straight forward for change a major mechanic like this.

[PoorOldSpike]

..the devs would need to go back over almost all the scenarios (campaign and stand alone) for balance tweaks..

Personally I've never been a big fan of scens and campaigns in any wargame for the simple reason they become predictable and deja vu after playing them a couple of times because you'll know exactly where and what the enemy forces will be, so where's the realism and fun in that?
I much prefer PC2's sensational random mission generator battles where each one is fresh and new and unseen, and you have to use all your awesome skill and intuition to adapt to whatever map and units the generator throws at you without any prior knowledge..

Duke of Wellington - "The whole art of war consists of guessing at what is on the other side of the hill"

[Horseman]

..the devs would need to go back over almost all the scenarios (campaign and stand alone) for balance tweaks..

Personally I've never been a big fan of scens and campaigns in any wargame for the simple reason they become predictable and deja vu after playing them a couple of times because you'll know exactly where and what the enemy forces will be, so where's the realism and fun in that?
I much prefer PC2's sensational random mission generator battles where each one is fresh and new and unseen, and you have to use all your awesome skill and intuition to adapt to whatever map and units the generator throws at you without any prior knowledge..

Duke of Wellington - "The whole art of war consists of guessing at what is on the other side of the hill"

Maybe so but plenty of folks like the campaigns scenarios (and let's not forget the multiplayer scenarios here!) So they need to cater for all types.

[Retributarr]

Game-Play-Failure:

Why-Not incorporate into the Game... an [AEGFRM] 'Automatic'-'Error/Game-Failure'-' Reporting Mechanism'
Whereby... as in one of my Game-Response-Failures... where a specific "Campaign" refuses to allow even the first game round/turn to be conducted.

In this instance... the Game also 'Freezes-Up'... where-by... I can even no-longer exit the particular 'Scenario/Campaign'... back to the desktop... that now!... the [AEGFRM] Initiates an automatic-procedure to 'Report' the 'Incident' for analysis... so that this or what-ever other such situation can now be "analyzed/studied"... so that a recommendation or 'Fix' can then be offered or implemented!.

I don't know how far this could go, but perhaps also have an 'Option' for the player to also voluntarily submit by an automated process to divulge... other pertinent Computer Information... such as 'Operating-System', Ram, Disk-Space... and or what-ever else... 'that-is-necessary' to assist in the 'Failure-Analysis'!.

[Kerensky]

I can really speak to random mode, that's not my department.

Map edge supply being configurable has come up before. It's a good idea, but it's not really practical until content calls for, and is designed, around it. That's a topic for the distant future.

As for security forces... It's entirely possible to edit units to perform this function. But there's a reason it's not invoked. Having empty hexes is often intentional. Encountering a speed bump on every single flag hex... well I'll probably just not put as many flag hexes on maps anymore.

Dedicated security forces actually are more complicated than one might think. If they are cheap and low slot... then of course you will put them everywhere. But if you put them everywhere, they aren't security forces anymore. There are more security forces than your entire army. This is the problem with conscripts, people are very happy to flood the battlefield with them, and only people who know precisely how to beat such units can fight back effectively.

Security forces in a campaign and in multiplayer are also two entirely different beasts.

In campaign, they're just going to be annoying and non-threatening speed bumps. No weak 5 strength unit can stand up to elite units with heros attached. They're just going to clutter the map and slow you down. Which is antithetical to blitzkrieg, where we want players to move fast with their Panzers. Not bog down like it's World War I.

In multiplayer, people have been using bridge engineers as a stop gap, but this creates it's own problems. Bridge engineers work because they are a really difficult roadblock, because 15 strength is a lot of meat to chew through.

So for multiplayer balance, we've had to first destroy bridge engineers from being garrison units.

Then create a proper garrison unit, which actually has to be prestige cheap, but slot heavy. There has to be a balance to offset players from just flooding the map with these units. Prestige is pretty tight in non random MP content, but slots generally are very loose. It's pretty much impossible to hit, and maintain, slot capacity in multiplayer, unless you are doing very funny things like buying all cheap, high slot biplane fighters.

Point is, it's a lot of trouble for what is effectively just a really annoying speedbump type unit. I'd much rather see effort put into something more interesting.

And in a campaign setting, I have other ideas for garrison troops. Aux, friendly AI, and understrength units are all available, and we'll see them soon.

[a432]

Pooroldspike, YES to everything you have suggested! Please we need all of these things you have listed!

[fluffybunnyuk]

I think the devs are doing a great job so far.

Its difficult to cater for every player. As for me, I'm fairly useless, I definitely need easier levels. Some of us cant breeze through generalissimus with barely a scratch. Heck i cant even finish the first scenario on that setting.I can just about handle 30% less prestige after alot of playing.So i'd like more variety in the way difficulty is set (i.e. not just money).

So my top wish is still a custom difficulty setting when you can use sliders to set the handicaps for prestige, enemy AI accuracy, reducing your own accuracy even (30% might be cool cos 5* would get you 80%, and you'd need a good recon unit to get anywhere near 100%), increased AI prestige ( giving the AI say 200%/300%/400% etc more money to buff repairs). You could have an option for the AI to get heroes(not visible so you dont know which unit has the rapid fire hero).There could be an option for the AI to get an undeclared random trait...finding your playing a campaign where the AI AA causes kills not suppression would be fun, or tanks with +1 movement scary, imagine if the AI could split units.. you'd roll up to a unit planning encirclement.. only to find yourself encircled as the AI split its units... or if the AI started with those 3 heroes....

I think theres lots of mileage in terms of replayability in being able to pick a custom difficulty.

[DarkBlueInk]

I would like to see more realistic AI actions and more accurate history in the historical scenarios. The devs have managed to rewrite history with the Fall Weiss scenario where Poland has:
- a larger and better air force than mid/late war England
- the most OP tank in the game: the TKS
- more rail lines than all other countries combined loaded with armored trains that the Germans cannot destroy
- cavalry that beats the crap out of German tanks, even when the cavalry is in a river or swamp hex
- 5 star TKS tanks while none of the Germans had a single star (curious where these TKS crews earned all that experience...)
- retreating units that go in mind-boggling directions such as this: 3 options to move when forced to retreat...(1) into a clear hex adjacent to another German unit (2) into a river hex adjacent to a German unit (3) into a river hex between TWO Polish units. And the AI choice is???? Into a river hex between TWO Polish units.

I would also like to see improvements/expansion of the Sea Lion & U.S. campaign. Granted I didn't play on Generalissimo level, but overall that path was way easier than it should have been.

I would like to see simple things like the next day's weather in the historical scenarios.

And I think I would like the option of using General Traits or a small number of heroes in the historical/non-historical scenarios. After the playing the full campaign, you really feel at a disadvantage without them.

And personally I don't like the strategic map view and I wish there was a way to toggle that off.

All that said, I have been really enjoying the game and I'm looking forward to the next update and/or DLC.

[fluffybunnyuk]

More ammo would be nice....
My infantry pioneer no heroes just ran out of 4 ammo.Something i never imagined possible.

[Horseman]

More ammo would be nice....
My infantry pioneer no heroes just ran out of 4 ammo.Something i never imagined possible.

No that wouldn't be good - to much ammo and it makes the supply mechanic (which is already very generous) worthless.

[Catacol]

I can really speak to random mode, that's not my department.

Map edge supply being configurable has come up before. It's a good idea, but it's not really practical until content calls for, and is designed, around it. That's a topic for the distant future.

As for security forces... It's entirely possible to edit units to perform this function. But there's a reason it's not invoked. Having empty hexes is often intentional. Encountering a speed bump on every single flag hex... well I'll probably just not put as many flag hexes on maps anymore.

Dedicated security forces actually are more complicated than one might think. If they are cheap and low slot... then of course you will put them everywhere. But if you put them everywhere, they aren't security forces anymore. There are more security forces than your entire army. This is the problem with conscripts, people are very happy to flood the battlefield with them, and only people who know precisely how to beat such units can fight back effectively.

Security forces in a campaign and in multiplayer are also two entirely different beasts.

In campaign, they're just going to be annoying and non-threatening speed bumps. No weak 5 strength unit can stand up to elite units with heros attached. They're just going to clutter the map and slow you down. Which is antithetical to blitzkrieg, where we want players to move fast with their Panzers. Not bog down like it's World War I.

In multiplayer, people have been using bridge engineers as a stop gap, but this creates it's own problems. Bridge engineers work because they are a really difficult roadblock, because 15 strength is a lot of meat to chew through.

So for multiplayer balance, we've had to first destroy bridge engineers from being garrison units.

Then create a proper garrison unit, which actually has to be prestige cheap, but slot heavy. There has to be a balance to offset players from just flooding the map with these units. Prestige is pretty tight in non random MP content, but slots generally are very loose. It's pretty much impossible to hit, and maintain, slot capacity in multiplayer, unless you are doing very funny things like buying all cheap, high slot biplane fighters.

Point is, it's a lot of trouble for what is effectively just a really annoying speedbump type unit. I'd much rather see effort put into something more interesting.

And in a campaign setting, I have other ideas for garrison troops. Aux, friendly AI, and understrength units are all available, and we'll see them soon.

Conscripts are sorted in MP by making them a bit more expensive, reducing spotting to 1 and turning them to 15 strength. I've done this - and games instantly balanced better. If the Limit availability function in the editor could be got working then scenario designers can limit the numbers of bridging infantry to stop gamey crap like that. I like the way that we can stop air being purchased now - allows a designer to put 4 air units in at the start and see 4 air units operate throughout the game. No tac air spamming given they are very cheap....

All of this kind of discussion really hinges on unit balance, and at the moment the game is not as well balanced as it could be for mp. I'm playing mp every day and gradually evolving my units file via the scenario builder to get it better - increasing AAA scores, increasing air slot sizes, changing conscripts, changing close defence values of flame tanks - all the sorts of thing that makes the game a better 2 player experience. What you need is a group of beta testers to do this kind of thing for you and feed back....

Friendly AI? In a 2 player game? That would be a very interesting added element. How about a 2 player game being able to be played across 4 factions: each player commanding 2 armies with their own deploy zones and prestige income? That would be good too.

[Kerensky]

I'm not sure I would like an idea to fix conscripts... by just making them more like every other infantry.

Infantry suffer from a lack of diversity, making them less diverse seems like a step in the wrong direction.

[BaronVonWalrus]

Disclaimer - I'm not into MP so am writing from a SP / Campaigner perspective:

What are the options for making PaKs more viable compared with self-propelled AT? They were the backbone of German anti-tank capability on the Eastern Front, not the limited supplies of non-StuG panzerjaegers.

Admittedly, I understand the game is "Panzer Corps" and not "Infanterie Division simulator"

[Kerensky]

Disclaimer - I'm not into MP so am writing from a SP / Campaigner perspective:

What are the options for making PaKs more viable compared with self-propelled AT? They were the backbone of German anti-tank capability on the Eastern Front, not the limited supplies of non-StuG panzerjaegers.

Admittedly, I understand the game is "Panzer Corps" and not "Infanterie Division simulator"

Easy answer, new player character trait: Artillery Officer. Towed units (AT/AD/Arty) have reduced slot cost.

That could encourage more towed unit usage for some players and playstyles.

Long answer:

The game is fundamentally stacked against towed units by it's very nature. You are almost always on the offensive, you are generally always moving units around, you pretty much never hold a static position for an extended period of time.
Towed units doing short drive dismount is a huge boon to making them more appealing, but it's still not really enough.

So some new scenario design might help address the issue. It's funny how useful a Pak36 is when your only alternative option is... nothing, or a Panzer I. Sure as heck want a Pak 36 in this case. You'll see what that's about soon.

[Kerensky]

I'd say towed units stats could use adjustment, but they're already pretty well adjusted.

Similar combat stats to self propelled units (same gun after all) but lower slot costs.

88pak 43 is 3 slots vs jagdpanther at 6 or nashorn at 5
75 pak 40 at 2 slots vs 3 on marders and 4 on stug IIIG

But again, this is just the game campaign environment skewing against cheap low quality units. Campaign environment by nature favors highest quality units, because they persist for such a long time. That's just how the game works, can't fix that without putting some problematic dents into the pillars of the game.

Will people use more low slot alternatives in a grand campaign environment, if they are being spread thin on a very, very large battlefield?

No idea, people will probably still condense their forces anyways, and just deathball roll around the map dealing with one location at a time.

I think low quality units just dont have much place in a player's campaign force. But they serve very important roles as secondary units. So auxilaries, and also good for target variety. Be pretty damn annoying if every single British ATG was a 17 pounder.

[PoorOldSpike]

in the Random generator, AI recon planes such as this Storch don't move for the whole game, they just hover above or adjacent to an airfield, so can I suggest that the devs either make them move, or completely remove them from the generator because they serve no useful purpose and clutter up the map-

[PoorOldSpike]

PoorOldSpike suggested-
Create a new "Security unit type" for all nations which would be cheap to buy..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..There has to be a balance to offset players from just flooding the map with these units...
Point is, it's a lot of trouble for what is effectively just a really annoying speedbump type unit. I'd much rather see effort put into something more interesting.

Thanks for the reply muchacho, but consider this- if people need garrisons at the moment in the Random generator, they simply flood the map with cheap slot-light Bridging units anyway, so my point is that the game would look more realistic if proper security units could be bought instead of having to buy Bridge units.
That's why I suggested making Bridge units more expensive and more slot-heavy to deter people from buying them, and create cheap new small-size slot-light low combat strength "Security units" for all nations which would look much more realistic.

"What's the drill dad?"
"1- fire that panzerfaust at any enemy tanks coming across that field,
2- "Run like hell"

[Kerensky]

Replacing a stopgap board flooding unit with a different board flooding unit... serves no real purpose.

A new garrison unit shouldn't just be something you can flood a map with, the same as bridge engineers should probably stick to bridge making duties (increasing their slot cost is harmful to their campaign function)

[Retributarr]

Replacing a stopgap board flooding unit with a different board flooding unit... serves no real purpose.

A new garrison unit shouldn't just be something you can flood a map with, the same as bridge engineers should probably stick to bridge making duties (increasing their slot cost is harmful to their campaign function)

Could-Not!... 'a limit' on the number of these 'specialized-units' be imposed [According to Historical-National capacities]... to say... for example... 3 or 4 per type... or to what-ever works out the best?.