Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Get all the latest news on Slitherine.

Moderator: Slitherine Core

13obo
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by 13obo » Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:22 am

It's obvious the tactics of handling this situation will have to change from PzC to PzC2. The solution for your impasse example is that you should suppress enemy artillery first with bomber or your artillery and then attack the AT with your infrantry. It's just a different rock paper scissors game, I don't see the reason for the resistance to chang given PzC2 is a new game with new mechanics.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 4885
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Kerensky » Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:42 am

13obo wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:22 am
It's obvious the tactics of handling this situation will have to change from PzC to PzC2. The solution for your impasse example is that you should suppress enemy artillery first with bomber or your artillery and then attack the AT with your infrantry. It's just a different rock paper scissors game, I don't see the reason for the resistance to chang given PzC2 is a new game with new mechanics.
Not enough, your example is too vague and does not adequately explore the potential situations that can and will arise in actual gameplay. As said, upgrade the soft arty into a hard target, and you lose all ability to suppress it with artillery first. Enter mid and late war and give Allies air superiority, and what bombers are going to be available to the Germans? It's flipped in early war when the Luftwaffe reigns. How are early war Allies going to tackle such a formation without air superiority, and without their own arty? As we know, the Germans actually do have some nice self propelled hard target artillery even early on, like that Sturmpanzer StuG IIIA and IIIB. What happens if there is bad weather and you can't even rely on air support even with air superiority?

There's no 'resistance for change' going on here. There is a very clear problem presented, and it needs a solution. I didn't say the solution is to not implement AT support, in fact I actually said, in big bold letters, a better solution is to implement offensive combined arms tactics.

To illustrate. Defensive combined arms tactics means AT supporting ARTY at the same time ARTY supports AT. Combined arms offensive tactics could be the replacement for the old Panzer Corps 'mass attack' mechanic.
Meaning what when you park two units next to an enemy, and both of those units still have their attack action, they support in other in non-standard ways.

In Panzer Corps, 'mass attack' was a way to turn initiative. Anyone who knows the mechanics knows that the best way to fight fighters is to move a ton of your aircraft around your target to crush it's initiative under mass attack rules and then proceed to attack after moving many units adjacent to the target.

What if we had some new mass attack rules.

1. If you mass attack with two infantry next to each other against a unit who is supported by artillery fire only ONE infantry attacker gets hit by supporting suppression fire, allowing the other infantry to maul the AT unit, which then opens the path for your tanks to wreck that now unprotected arty piece. Now you have an answer other than 'wave assault until they run out of ammo' or relying on potentially ineffective artillery or unavailable air support.
2. If you mass attack with one infantry one tank. Perhaps that tank unit can attack enemy infantry in close terrain but not use its close defense modifier. Basically you are using your infantry in a combined arms attack to protect your tanks so they can't be swarm attacked by enemy infantry.

Image

You cannot swarm that tanks with close range infantry assault tactics, it is being escorted by friendly infantry.

How cool, thematic, and effective would that be? It would be a big improvement over the 'Mass attack' mechanic present in Panzer Corps, and reward players even more for using proper combined arms tactics.

Imagine if recon units who participate in combined arms attacks gave a special bonus. People keep complaining, even in this very thread, that recon units aren't useful enough. So this could be something to make them useful. What is sometimes RNG bullshit in Panzer Corps? Rugged defense, that shit can ruin your day, it's 100% RNG whether you encounter 'rugged defense' or not, no amount of skill can influence those dice, sometimes it just happens. What if when you have a friendly recon unit adjacent to your target, your attacks become immune to rugged defense? That sounds REALLY useful. And it's thematic. Your recon car is providing close range, accurate scouting support, so you aren't blundering into a terrible rugged defense surprise event.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 4885
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Kerensky » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:06 am

What could the rules be for all 'offensive combined arms' effects.

Attack a unit with friendly infantry adjacent. The first (only the first) attack against a target during your turn ignores all support fire. Call it 'diversion'. So having extra infantry to act as diversion is a counter to turtle tactics that rely excessively on units providing support fire. Perhaps too strong, maybe need 2 adjacent infantry to trigger properly?

So two friendly infantry and you get the diversion perk. One friendly infantry and you get tanks being able to assault enemy infantry in close terrain but not use their close defense stat for that engagement.

Attack a unit with a friendly tank adjacent. I'm not sure, I think tanks giving normal initiative penalty reducing is good enough, because initiative is still really important to manipulate. Perhaps because other unit types no longer reduce initiative through mass attack, perhaps adjacent friendly tanks reduce defender initiative by 2 instead of 1 per tank.

Attack a unit with a friendly recon adjacent. Defending unit can never trigger rugged defense event. Other entrenchment bonuses remain unaffected.

Attack a unit with a friendly ATG adjacent. I'm not sure, I think anti tanks giving normal initiative penalty reducing is good enough, because initiative is still really important to manipulate.

Attack a unit with a friendly ARTY adjacent. No effect, arty can already support any attack with their indirect and long range attacks.

13obo
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by 13obo » Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:22 pm

These ideas are pretty good indeed. The only thing is again implementing it so AI can take advantage of all these new additional situations. I just don't see an AI doing such sophisticated maneuvers, which would require planning at least a couple of turns in advance, analysing benefits of positioning one way as opposed to another, as well as moving unit types in different order as opposed to how it is in PZC. Would be very happy if it works ofc.

Any additional mechanic adds an extra layer of sophistication that requires the AI to be exponentially more powerful. It sounds simple to add just 1 more thing but on the face of the many other existing things, it can lead to the AI doing a lot sillier things that were not coded for initially

Rudankort
FlashBack Games
FlashBack Games
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Rudankort » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:14 pm

Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:10 am
I'm confused by the statement that infantry will be more powerful. Maybe we didn't play the same game, because infantry are the best (economical) units in the entire game. No unit can do as much as they do for the prices they come at. The fact the cheapest unit in the entire game can threaten the most expensive shows how good (properly used) infantry is. Conscript swarms taking down King Tigers works in open and close terrain. In open, they drain all its ammo, and in close, they actually are killing King Tigers not just ammo draining. The reason infantry don't seem good is because the campaign environment hurts them. They are required to absorb huge losses to do their job, and constant elite replenishment to maintain infantry experience are untenable compared to overpowering a Tiger that pays for itself when it blows up 10 strength Allied tanks in a single shot and takes no return damage. In multiplayer, infantry are the kings; tanks are luxury units you only wield in absolutely critical areas and rarely purchase new unless you are absolutely swimming in resources but low on core slots.
I think that we both agree on the place and role of infantry in the game, just prefer to present it differently. Infantry has got low price exactly because at a higher price it would see even less use, when it already struggles hard in campaign environment. And the reason for that is, in many cases infantry can be replaced in its role with other units. For example, with arty+tank combination. My goal in the new game is maybe not making infantry more powerful per se, but more important and irreplacible in its unique role.
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:10 am
Saying lone AT is vulnerable as ever is a problematic statement. Any AT worth it's salt (Pak 75, Pak 88, 17 pdr, 85mm, 100mm, et cetera) doesn't ever need any help, it's absolutely going to dominate any armor foolish enough to engage it head on.
I never said that AT was vulnerable when alone. Only that in Panzer Corps you already have to deal with these units one way or another, and the new AT support mechnics does not change anything in this regard. Jagdpanthers covered with 2 Wurfrahmens did exist before. :)

If I understood your above posts correctly, you argued that AT support has some fundamental, theoretical problems. But I don't quite understand what these problems are. Along the same lines, you could argue that arty support in PzC has a fundamental problem: in a triangle of three artilleries each unit is covered by two more, against any attack. And you could illustrate it with this example from Barbarossa, where the best german infantry, tank and SPAT cannot do anything against such a formation of the best soviet artillery of the time.

Image

But of course, this completely changes in late war, where arty's hard attack rating cannot catch up with advancement in defense of armoured units. In fact, this situation is probably wrong and unrealistic, because even 6 units of ISU-152, which should suppress the hell out of any unit, cannot do much against good (but not the most powerful) german units:

Image

Getting back to defensive triangle of 2 artys and an AT. I won't repeat again that only the most powerful units in this formation pose a problem, and they can be run out of ammo by any crappy unit, including Conscripts you mentioned above, and then they are easy prey. Let's just tackle them head on.

Example one: 2 Hummels (biggest hard attack) and a Jagdpanther. We bring in three SU-100s to create mass attack and get some decent chances to defeat that Jagdpanther. Admittedly, they are still struggling, but that's because Jagdpanther is such a powerful unit. With new rules, Hummels would not generate even that little suppression they do now, so maybe the odds would be even better for soviets.

Image

Example two: now we replace Jagdpanther with the most powerful towed gun, 8.8mm PaK 43/41. This unit is not vulnerable to hard attack, but as a soft target, it becomes extremely vulnerable to artillery. We bring in two Katyushas and a T-34-85, and...

Image

...and actually we did not need the tank, because the two Katyushas fried that poor AT.

Image

Finally, looking at your example:
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:10 am
Image

So the normal answer to Exhibit C is use a tank to tackle that arty piece first and smash it to bits. Then the infantry can 1 - 7 the AT and eat it for dinner.
But under your new rules, that towed AT would support the ARTY unit... meaning even something as powerful as a Panther is going to get ripped to piece trying to engage that artillery piece. The problem is that there is no direct way to engage these units anymore, because AT supports ARTY but ARTY also supports AT. You may respond to say use artillery fire to soften an arty unit. What if its a heavily armored ARTY support piece like an Su-122 or even as big as ISU-152? Arty softening fire won't do anything to that.
With new rules you basically need just one additional step: suppress that AT. Since it is standing on the front line, it is not exactly hard. After that your tanks are free to attack that artillery behind the lines, and your infantry is free to obliterate that AT.

Important point here is that the new rule is defensive and benefits the defender for the most part. I think, this rule will make deconstructing the defense a little bit more interesting, because you can have different combinations of arty, AT and AA, all in soft and hard target variants, and there are more subtle differences between various units that will be expressed in their traits. However, in most cases the attacker has tactical initiative and local concentration of force, so this task should be solvable. If, on the other hand, the attacker brings in his mobile fortress, this fortress will not win the battle automatically, because it is purely a defensive formation. The defender is not obliged to attack it if he does not see a good chance, just like he is not obliged to attack your 15-strength 5-star King Tigers now. He can just sit there and see how the attacker is going to win this engagement. After all, in most defensive scenarios the goal of the defender is usually to slow down the attacker as much as possible, not necessarily obliterate him in every engagement. Of course, the problem of stupid AI which can be baited into suiside attack exists, but we are specifically trying to address this problem in the new AI.

Rudankort
FlashBack Games
FlashBack Games
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Rudankort » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:37 pm

Now, regarding the suggested offensive combat arms effects, I of course have no objections, and some such effects are already in the works, especially regarding recons. For example, recons can make arty fire more effective when standing next to the target. This is also to answer how we are going to make recons more useful. But there is no doubt that we can always do more in this department.

This does require some thought as this is obviously a complex topic, but out of my head:
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:06 am
Attack a unit with friendly infantry adjacent. The first (only the first) attack against a target during your turn ignores all support fire. Call it 'diversion'. So having extra infantry to act as diversion is a counter to turtle tactics that rely excessively on units providing support fire. Perhaps too strong, maybe need 2 adjacent infantry to trigger properly?
We have this as a hero ability. With two infantries, hmm, it does sound a bit artificial, but otherwise could work.
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:06 am
So two friendly infantry and you get the diversion perk. One friendly infantry and you get tanks being able to assault enemy infantry in close terrain but not use their close defense stat for that engagement.
This does sound too strong. In Panzer Corps it was relatively easy to suppress infantry and disable its unique close terrain advantage, which generated some balance problems, but this rule would make it even easier still.
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:06 am
Attack a unit with a friendly tank adjacent. I'm not sure, I think tanks giving normal initiative penalty reducing is good enough, because initiative is still really important to manipulate. Perhaps because other unit types no longer reduce initiative through mass attack, perhaps adjacent friendly tanks reduce defender initiative by 2 instead of 1 per tank.
I think, a trait to reduce initiative by more than one is a great idea.
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:06 am
Attack a unit with a friendly recon adjacent. Defending unit can never trigger rugged defense event. Other entrenchment bonuses remain unaffected.
Another good idea. :)
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:06 am
Attack a unit with a friendly ATG adjacent. I'm not sure, I think anti tanks giving normal initiative penalty reducing is good enough, because initiative is still really important to manipulate.
We can probably reduce armoured defender's ground defense in this case, as it would try to turn his most protected side to the AT. :)
Last edited by Rudankort on Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jeromem
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by jeromem » Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:31 pm

been waiting to hear of a release date /???? when?????????

Intenso82
Most Successful Mod 2017
Most Successful Mod 2017
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 8:48 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Intenso82 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:44 pm

Rudankort wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:37 pm
new AT support mechnics
AT support will use indirect damage tables?
And with a direct attack use a direct damage table as an AT in PZC1?

It would be good to provide for the mechanics of auto-switching artillery to direct fire when tanks attack arty and arty using direct damage tables.
Maybe with some chance as a rugged defense or just rule.
[MOD] RUSSIA AT WAR:1941 - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=75743

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 4885
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Kerensky » Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:15 pm

Rudankort wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:14 pm

If I understood your above posts correctly, you argued that AT support has some fundamental, theoretical problems. But I don't quite understand what these problems are. Along the same lines, you could argue that arty support in PzC has a fundamental problem: in a triangle of three artilleries each unit is covered by two more, against any attack. And you could illustrate it with this example from Barbarossa, where the best german infantry, tank and SPAT cannot do anything against such a formation of the best soviet artillery of the time.

Important point here is that the new rule is defensive and benefits the defender for the most part. I think, this rule will make deconstructing the defense a little bit more interesting, because you can have different combinations of arty, AT and AA, all in soft and hard target variants, and there are more subtle differences between various units that will be expressed in their traits. However, in most cases the attacker has tactical initiative and local concentration of force, so this task should be solvable. If, on the other hand, the attacker brings in his mobile fortress, this fortress will not win the battle automatically, because it is purely a defensive formation. The defender is not obliged to attack it if he does not see a good chance, just like he is not obliged to attack your 15-strength 5-star King Tigers now. He can just sit there and see how the attacker is going to win this engagement. After all, in most defensive scenarios the goal of the defender is usually to slow down the attacker as much as possible, not necessarily obliterate him in every engagement. Of course, the problem of stupid AI which can be baited into suiside attack exists, but we are specifically trying to address this problem in the new AI.

Example one: 2 Hummels (biggest hard attack) and a Jagdpanther. We bring in three SU-100s to create mass attack and get some decent chances to defeat that Jagdpanther. Admittedly, they are still struggling, but that's because Jagdpanther is such a powerful unit. With new rules, Hummels would not generate even that little suppression they do now, so maybe the odds would be even better for soviets.
I see the point you're trying to make, but I am not convinced by your argument. I think the flaw lies in this example:

Image

Your triangle is too logical, too intuitive, you put your arty in the back. But that's wrong, it's supposed to be in the front now.

The point I'm making isn't the hard attack of the support artillery. Their HA is irrelevant, as you correctly demonstrated. The problem is that in this triangle formation, the easy, obvious thing to do when looking at it... why are you suicide charging your great SU-100s into 5-4 odds when there are TWO juicy Hummels you can obliterate! Why are you trying to muscle your way through the best self propelled AT unit in the entire game!! :shock: :shock: :shock:

Image

Old rules PzC, this is what happens if you try this absurd triangle formation of Hummel Hummel with the Jagdpanther is the rear. Your Hummels get 0 7 and two shot while the Jadgpanther can only watch in horror. Imagine if that rear planted Jagdpanther wasn't just sitting there uselessly... Imagine if it pre-shot any hard target attacking the Hummels... Everything changes. Now any hard attack into the vulnerable Hummels eats a Jadgpanther support shot, and that is absolutely devastating to Allied armor.

So now you can't just throw armor at those Hummels and 0 7 them to pieces. What are the other options?

Soften with artillery.

Image

Failure, 0 - 1 pittance result. Target is too hard to suppress with arty. And there are much harder self propelled arty units than the Hummel.

Infantry assault in open terrain.

Image

Catastrophic disaster, 4 0 suicide attack that accomplishes nothing but ammo drain.

Infantry assault in close terrain, what should be the holy grail of infantry vs arty tactics)

Image

Pyrrhic victory at best, I don't think anyone would opt into an attack with 4 - 2 odds, but this seems to be the best you can get in this situation.

This leaves only 1 solution left. Call in air support.
I hope you have air superiority, cause imagine if you didn't. I hope the weather doesn't block you... cause I hope you're not fighting in the Battle of the Bulge and have no air support to ever call on...

Perhaps they are new tools and new mechanics I am just unaware of that makes this not such a problem situation? I'd say we theorycrafted it to its extreme, but maybe things will change with hands on experience in new PzC II environments?
Last edited by Kerensky on Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 4885
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Kerensky » Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:31 pm

And really, you can make this triangle much more efficiently than this.

Why do you need the most expensive Jagdpanther. Throw in a much cheaper Nashorn who has a gun that is just as powerful.

And Nashorn is a mid war unit. Built a 1943 triangle with Narshorn in the back, and Wurfrahmen or Panzerwefer 42s in front.

You could probably built a 1939 triangle out of Panzerjager ib and stuG IIIa or sturmpanzer I

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 4885
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Kerensky » Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:10 pm

Here's a situation I foresee.

Defender:

Image

Attacker:

Image


Normally, what happens? Those 3 tanks swoop down and murder those 2 arty and 2 infantry in transport, completely spoiling the attack on the VH.

I drive my wurfrahman point blank on my first turn, and double shoot the 152 towed arty to maul it. or double shoot the AD if I have aircraft I can bring in.

The defender has 1 turn to counter attack, I have 2 vulnerable wurfrahmen and 2 vulnerable infantry in transport just begging to eat an armored counter attack but that jagdpanther in the center... you cannot tank assault this formation
and instead of having to do a slow advance on this VH, I bumrush it in this pentagonal formation.

and next turn, infantry and wufrahmen swap spots boom, arty block problem solved

Normally in pzc, after moving like this, the defender counter attack will obliterate 1 wurfrahman and cripple both infantry with their 3 tank counter attacks, making the next attack turn useless.

so normally, you advance much slower, jagdpanther in front, infantry not in transport just walking, and wurfrahmen behind infantry

but what does the defender do now if that jagdpanther provides supporting fire? you only get 1 turn to attack this 'vulnerable' formation of infantry in transport and arty in the front

so you switch isu 122 into arty mode to suppress 1 wufrahmen
then you have 1 t34 85 who will do nothing because of support jagdpanther

and 1 IS2 who can absorb some damage and maybe hurt 1 of these 4 vulnerable attackers
and next attacker turn, kiss that VH good bye. 1 and a half wurfrahmen to nuke the infantry, and 2 infantry attacks to clean up

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 4885
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Kerensky » Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:14 pm

These triangles and pentagonal spearheads... PzC II could become a game of geometry.

VICTORY THROUGH GEOMETRY!

hs1611
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by hs1611 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:41 pm

A few suggestions:
- Make support fire suppressive only.
- Make supporting ATs and ARTs like Fighters, they can only support fire once per turn.
- Use different attack values for direct fire and support fire.

Rudankort
FlashBack Games
FlashBack Games
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Rudankort » Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:45 am

Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:15 pm
Your triangle is too logical, too intuitive, you put your arty in the back. But that's wrong, it's supposed to be in the front now.
I did not put the artillery in front, because even within the existing Panzer Corps system of formulas and stats, I really think that putting your artillery in front is a bad idea. Artillery is a vulnerable class in general, except the assault guns (but those guns typically have a range of 1 and are specifically created to drive into front row, even without AT support mechanics in Panzer Corps).
Kerensky wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:15 pm
So now you can't just throw armor at those Hummels and 0 7 them to pieces. What are the other options?

Soften with artillery.

Failure, 0 - 1 pittance result. Target is too hard to suppress with arty. And there are much harder self propelled arty units than the Hummel.

Infantry assault in open terrain.

Catastrophic disaster, 4 0 suicide attack that accomplishes nothing but ammo drain.

Infantry assault in close terrain, what should be the holy grail of infantry vs arty tactics)

Pyrrhic victory at best, I don't think anyone would opt into an attack with 4 - 2 odds, but this seems to be the best you can get in this situation.
Well this is not entirely correct, so let us get the facts straight first. ;) Some big images ahead, so I won't embed them and will give links instead. All combat logs are extended predictions, so show an average outcome. Real outcome could be either better or worse for the attacker.

As I said, artillery in general is a vulnerable class. Most units have GD between 2 and 4. Hummel has 3, and this is what happens when it is attacked with a decent artillery:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eksva69xr8c66 ... .png?raw=1
Such a hit immediately takes support fire from this unit out of equation.

Now, Panzerwerfer has GD of 8, but it is not well protected against such an attack either:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/95vy94i69xouo ... .png?raw=1
Half of the unit suppressed, its support fire capability is severely crippled.

Don't dismiss infantry just yet. Here is what good infantry can do:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8q6h39knam96w ... .png?raw=1
2-2 is a good exchange, given the circumstances.

In close terrain even infamous Conscripts can be dangerous:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/recfpb3mnn7jt ... .png?raw=1

And here is a possible outcome of their handy work:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zv1lj3rbj1bhc ... .png?raw=1
Does not look as good for Germans.

Finally, we also have towed AT guns, and I deliberately did not take the most high end one, but a middle-class 57mm. First attack against HUmmels looks like this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/219ugtg5knngi ... .png?raw=1

It gets progressively easy though, and the final result can be this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnzl0yuikup87 ... .png?raw=1

AT support is also not without problems. Of course, Jardpanther is a uniquely effective unit, because of its combination of mobility, protection and firepower. But alternatives are not so easy to find. Nashorn is almost as vulnerable as artillery itself, and a stray hit like this puts the whole formation in danger:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xgji4v7kzr4fo ... .png?raw=1
Elefant and JagdTiger are well protected, but slow. Other units have significantly smaller hard attack, and can struggle even with early soviet armor, like KVs.

So, even with Panzer Corps rules and stats, the situation is not as desparate. I did not even need to call in air support or employ run out of ammo tactics. HOWEVER, I fully agree that this situation where you need to tackle Hummels with odd units, while your tanks stand nearby and stupidly wait is not normal at all. And this is exactly the reason why formulas and stats will be balanced in Panzer Corps 2 with AT support in mind. Support fire in general will not be as devastating as it is in Panzer Corps, neither for soft nor for hard targets, because that is not so good for gameplay and not realistic either. In real life, a Jagdpanther standing behind a line of other units would certainly give them some support and help deflect armoured attacks. But it would not obliterate every unit in sight. The game will reflect this reality.
Last edited by Rudankort on Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 4885
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Kerensky » Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:21 pm

Rudankort wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:45 am
So, even with Panzer Corps rules and stats, the situation is not as desparate. I did not even need to call in air support or employ run out of ammo tactics. HOWEVER, I fully agree that this situation where you need to tackle Hummels with odd units, while your tanks stand nearby and stupidly wait is not normal at all. And this is exactly the reason why formulas and stats will be balanced in Panzer Corps 2 with AT support in mind. Support fire in general will not be as devastating as it is in Panzer Corps, neither for soft nor for hard targets, because that is not so good for gameplay and not realistic either. In real life, a Jagdpanther standing behind a line of other units would certainly give them some support and help deflect armoured attacks. But it would not obliterate every unit in sight. The game will reflect this reality.
You could have just started with your conclusion and saved the effort of all those screenshots. ;)
Good to show your work though right? lol

I'm still somewhat skeptical, especially in a proper campaign environment with elite, overstrength, and heroed player, but I'd say we theorized this to its limit and we have an agreeable conclusion. If every AT unit was nullifying what should be very powerful tank attacks on vulnerable artillery, it's very concerning.

Image

Because the design concept of AT is to be as cheap, cheap, cheap as possible except for the gun.

While I do agree that arty support fire is also maybe too devastating, I will be sad to see it totally gutted. It did get somewhat old in traditional PzC to *always* have to dismantle supporting arty first before properly attacking a VH, so I look forward to seeing new ways to tackle these tactical obstacles.

I think part of that problem is the too 'all purpose' design of arty. You could get a 155mm or 170mm gun, and have it lob very powerful suppression fire all the way out to range 3 or even 4, but the same gun brings that power level when supporting adjacent infantry. That's a hugely powerful offensive and defensive tool.

Perhaps it will be nice for that giant 170mm gun to stop being a support murder machine, but perhaps as PzC II grows we might see something like dedicated support fire units. Units that are as lethal as classic pzc arty and must be cleared before assaulting the unit they support, but they need to have drawbacks so they aren't all purpose and all powerful as the huge long range guns. I mean Panzer General as a series has never has dedicated mortar units, but this might be just the role for them. Full power when providing fire support, but actually only had a gun range of 1. So it's really awkward to use a dedicated heavy mortar unit aggressively, but it serves a very specific and powerful purpose. I do love purpose built things, as you know.

Maybe after 1.0 ;)

Sid Meier
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:17 pm

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Sid Meier » Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:22 pm

Kerensky wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:21 pm
Maybe after 1.0 ;)
What will occur after 1.0 ?
'Learning is part of any good video game'. © Sid Meier

Rudankort
FlashBack Games
FlashBack Games
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Rudankort » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:01 pm

Kerensky wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:21 pm
You could have just started with your conclusion and saved the effort of all those screenshots. ;)
But but... then we would never know how to deal with Hummel formations using only sticks and stones. :)
hs1611 wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:41 pm
A few suggestions:
- Make support fire suppressive only.
- Make supporting ATs and ARTs like Fighters, they can only support fire once per turn.
- Use different attack values for direct fire and support fire.
These are all good suggestions which can be used to balance a mechanic like this. Fighters are a good example, because they would have exactly the same problem if they worked like arty (supported each other and other units indefinitely). But so far, it looks like we may achieve the right balance without even using additional rules. We shall see.
Intenso82 wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:44 pm
It would be good to provide for the mechanics of auto-switching artillery to direct fire when tanks attack arty and arty using direct damage tables.
Maybe with some chance as a rugged defense or just rule.
There are no plans for auto-switching.
jeromem wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:31 pm
been waiting to hear of a release date /???? when?????????
We are looking at a 2019 release now, but exact date will be announced only when we are reasonably sure about it.

hs1611
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by hs1611 » Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:40 am

Still about SUPPORT FIRE, 2 different ways it could work.
Sorry NO PICTURES, too much work...

First the ridicullously complex one:
- ALL GROUND UNITS provide Support Fire, Offensive as well as Defensive;
- Leave Fighters and Artillery as they are, maybe nerf Art a little bit;
- Everybody else provides Defensive Support Fire at 50% their regular attack stats and Offensive Support Fire at 33% their regular attack stats;
~ All Support Fire (except maybe, as stated above, Art and Fighters) is suppressive only;
- Units can only fire in support (offense or defense) within their range. Range 0 and 1 units can only fire against adjacent enemy units;
- Every unit can only attack once per turn, let's say it has 1 attack point per turn. Offensive Support Fire spends 0,5 attack points. So a unit that fires in support of an attack CANNOT make an attack that turn, but it can still provide support to 1 more attack by another unit;
- Because of the previous point Offensive Support Fire SHOULD NOT be automatic. Prior to the attack the player would have to select which, if any, eligible units would be used in a support role;
- Obviously support fire spends ammo, if possible 1/2 or 1/3 ammo point. If not possible then a full point.

And now a simpler one, which I actually tested on PzC. It works but my testing was not extensive enough to conclude if it was balanced:
- This one applies to Anti-Tank only, maybe even to TOWED ANTI-TANK only (leave Fighters and Artillery as they are, maybe nerf Art a little bit);
- AT units would be switchable between DIRECT FIRE or SUPPORT FIRE (defense only) mode;
- Since units must be switched BEFORE they attack, if you choose to have an AT unit provide support during the AI's turn you cannot use it to attack on your turn;
- Support Fire in this case works in the same way as Artillery, meaning the AT unit can be behind the unit it is supporting. The enemy unit DOES NOT have to be within the AT's range;
- AT Support Fire should be good against HARD TARGETS only.

That's it.
Have a good day.

ptje63
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by ptje63 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:23 am

Rudankort wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:54 pm
ptje63 wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:51 pm
No turn limit should have consequences for follow up scenarios - the longer it takes in theory other scenarios can end up being postponed. I would opt for less prestige awarded if one choses to continue to play beyond a certain pre-chosen amount of turns.
Not necessarily, because we are not saying turn duration is the same in both modes. With turn limit off, turns will not be getting a date assigned to them, so we can still assume the battle ended at about the same time as historically.
I dont understand how with turn limit off, the turns are not synchronized to the amount of days of fighting.

Gwaylare
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:17 am

Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4

Post by Gwaylare » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:13 pm

AlbertoC wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:37 am

Entrenchment

Another significant change is that, unlike Panzer Corps, base entrenchment provided by terrain will not be destroyed. Base entrenchment is a defensive bonus created by the terrain itself (forest, hills, mountains), and no bombardment can significantly reduce this bonus.
Does this mean a unit sitting in terrain will never be forced to retreat? At the moment a unit will not retreat or surrender as long as entrenchment > 0. This improves terrain a lot, because units are much more protected against artillery.

Post Reply

Return to “News & Announcements”