Hero abilities tier list

[dalfrede]

cheat NewHero IncMaxOverstrength
cheat NewHero MachineGun

[Buffalohump]

cheat NewHero IncMaxOverstrength
cheat NewHero MachineGun

Thank you very much. For those that are interested, you can also cheat code Paratrooper and Alpine abilities. The cheats will produce the heroes but they do not appear to work on other units. I have only tried them out on air transportable artillery and antitank but have been unable to drop. I was interested to see if I could drop support units with the Fallschirmjager. No joy.

Regards,

[George_Parr]

I found Oleh Dir on a Grenadier paired with the Hit and Run hero to be a pretty nice combination.

The Grenadier-unit already has the highest initiative among infantry units (at least early on, haven't checked all the stats), Oleh Dir adds further initiative, putting the unit ahead of any infantry you could encounter. With Hit and Run, the unit can attack any infantry without getting fired on, even when the unit is protected by artillery.

[adiekmann]

I always put Oler Dir on my Azul infantry unit. If you study the gift unit you will see that it actually has a "weakness" in that its initiative is only a 3. That's lower than standard infantry units have. To counteract that, and in fact turn it into a plus, the Oler Dir hero gives it a +3 initiative making it greater than even a base Grenadier or paratrooper.

A second hero that I like is an Ignores Entrenchment hero on Azul. Now he's a monster as he gains experience!

[dalfrede]

I am replaying the Main Campaign, just finished Leningrad, and noticed my Pz4 had 4 stars ??
I noticed it had 'Aiming Assistance' hero, which seems to give it the Recon Exp bonus.
Doesn't make difference in a scenario, but for a campaign it is a quick way to star up a green unit.

[Schwarzvogel]

Exactly. Moreover, you aren't guaranteed to get any of those heroes in a campaign. I'm nearly through my historical campaign in the base game and I've never gotten a hero with Envelopment, Overwhelming Attack, First Strike, or Rapid Fire.

You probably had a lot more fun than if you did get them.. Some of them alone, or in combination with others can turn a hard fought battle into a walk in the park..I had a combo where I could destroy a guaranteed 2 units a turn. How can the designer balance a scenario around op combos? They can't.. Why give us stuff that can break the game..

[/quote]

I had fun even without them. Personally, though, I really don't care if a hard-fought battle becomes a "walk in the park" solely due to late-game luck with heroes.What matters more to me is if certain scenarios became became almost impossible without particular hero combinations--now that would be poor game design. As I've stated again that you aren't guaranteed to get any of those heroes, there is never really a situation in which you feel your progress is hobbled due to poor RNG.

With the right unit types, you could destroy 2 units a turn without any heroes--a pair of Gustav Guns with five stars apiece and a recon vehicle + BF 109 PR will guarantee that. And yes, you can have 2 Gustav Guns in your core if you dismiss the auxiliary one at the start of Sevastopol.

For me, at least, things work fine the way they are. If I want more of a challenge, I won't use certain hero combinations since all scenarios are perfectly winnable without any OP heroes.

[stormbringer3]

I really enjoyed PC1. The Heroes in this game seem to be way too much for my taste and that's why I haven't purchased this game. Can you play without Heroes enabled? If so, would the game still be enjoyable?
Thanks for any opinions.

[Buffalohump]

I really enjoyed PC1. The Heroes in this game seem to be way too much for my taste and that's why I haven't purchased this game. Can you play without Heroes enabled? If so, would the game still be enjoyable?
Thanks for any opinions.

I personally have enjoyed this system better than PC1. One of the benefits is the ability to move them between units. Once you max out experience on a given unit, you can park it and move the heroes to an inexperienced unit. Another plus is the ability to “sale” them for much needed prestige. I do believe you can turn the hero function off as well. The game has an almost infinite level of adjustable difficulty.

Regards,

[dalfrede]

. . . I do believe you can turn the hero function off as well. The game has an almost infinite level of adjustable difficulty.

Yes you can turn off Heroes, it is in the Advance Options at the start of a new campaign.
While it has many new ways to adjust difficulty,
Sliders for Prestige, Experience, Enemy Strength, and Turns which are present in PzC1 have not yet made it into PzC2 yet.

[BaronVonWalrus]

I really enjoyed PC1. The Heroes in this game seem to be way too much for my taste and that's why I haven't purchased this game. Can you play without Heroes enabled? If so, would the game still be enjoyable?
Thanks for any opinions.

Hi. They are definitely removable - as previously said, use the Advanced Options when starting your campaign and untick them.

You will certainly learn good habits and get a fair challenge. Alternatively, you could leave them switched on and simply refuse to assign any overpowered / game-breaking heroes. I quite like the idea of a specialist river-crossing infantry unit and a hard-to-spot PaK unit lurking behind the advance to deal with armoured counterattacks......

[Retributarr]

"Heroes-Shmerios!"... I don't believe in Miracle-Coincidences:

I don't have the 'Exact-Information' at my finger-tips here at this very-moment... so without this 'Information'... at my immediate disposal... I will just rely on my faded memories to expound what I can still remember.

Yes!!!... to start off with... for example... "Rommel!!!"... who was the 'Dashing-Desert-Fox'... but???... why was that?... ever wonder why???.

It was because this had something to do with his or to do with the German secret intelligence services... having had access to direct information or current reports on 'British' desert activities in the North African Desert... from an 'American or British' agent who reported directly to Churchill as well as to the American Military services.

This crucial intelligence information... gave 'Rommel' the advantage or heads up as to what the British were doing or were going to do … as well as to what they were currently planning … as well as to when, what and where certain reinforcements that they were going to get. That's why for instance that 'Rommel'... seemed to always be 'One-Step-Ahead' of the 'British'... this was "No-Coincidence!".

Later!... the Allies... perhaps with the use of the 'Secret' 'ULTRA'... code breaking technology... found out about "Rommel's-Access' to this forbidden information"... and then put a stop to it... as well as to Rommel's endless streak of unprecedented access to vital Allied-Planning and dispositions... Rommel no longer had the 'Inside-Edge' in the war in the 'Desert'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same could go for perhaps... 'Zhukov' [Incorrect Spelling???]… or 'Patton'... 'Montgomery' or others. So these fabled eccentric abilities that came from ordinary men... usually... actually came from extraordinary access to inside information that most others did not have.

[George_Parr]

Information only takes you so far. Rommel succeeded because he was a daring commander, to the point were he was overly aggressive in his actions. This was already the case in WW1, and not different in the early goings of WW2. He fully understand how surprise and psychological effects could make an enemy completely misjudge the situation and give up even when in truth they weren't in that much of a bad spot at all. On the other hand, he also failed at having the bigger picture in mind. Too focused on the immediate front, never on how to sustain operations.

Germany did have a bit of access due to interception American communications from Egypt, which offered detailed descriptions of British plans and positions. It's funny how the Americans played right into the hands of the Italians and Germans, even though the attache who send the reports stated multiple times that he didn't think the code was secure. Not that the information was always reliable. It also suggested that the British might break if pushed once more, which didn't turn out to be true, but may have caused Rommel to go all in.

[Retributarr]

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... p_0001.htm


Cairo Calling Washington

In the fall of 1940 the Italians had crossed the Egyptian frontier and advanced east to Marsa Matruh. There they had been forced to halt. On 9 December 1940 General Wavell started his counteroffensive and by mid-March 1941 had thrown them back to the border of Tripolitania. Meanwhile the German Afrika Korps had been formed and transported to Tripolitania, and General Rommel now assumed command over all German and Italian forces in Italian North Africa.

An officer whom, for reasons which will become apparent, I shall call General Garrulus was stationed in Cairo as U.S. military attaché.

So Garrulus set to and sent one radiogram after another to Washington--reports on the political situation and, above all else, reports on everything connected with the British military preparations and operations. They were enciphered, of course, but the death of any cryptographic system lies in its frequent use. All these radiograms were intercepted by the Germans.

Garrulus reported to the War Department in Washington on the reinforcement of the British forces in western Egypt, on their equipment with modern arms, on each transport of war materiel that arrived.

Wherever the British started an action, Rommel immediately sent forces to oppose them. He even sent a column behind the British in the direction of Halfaya and cut their line of supply. He always did the right thing at the right time.

Small wonder, for Garrulus was sending one telegram after another to Washington. He ranged all over the battle area, saw and heard everything, knew all preparations, every intention, every movement of the British forces, and he transmitted it all to the United States. The German intercept station copied each message and sent it promptly by teletype to Berlin, where it was deciphered and forwarded by the speediest possible means to Rommel. The whole thing took only a few hours.

On 8 December Rommel pushed through a weak point in the British encirclement, disengaging his troops without being detected. Before the British recovered from their surprise he had escaped to the westward. On 11 December Churchill stated in the House of Commons that the Libyan campaign had not gone as expected.

But meanwhile Rommel had established his shattered units near El Agheila. He had also received dependable information regarding his opponent; Garrulus had seen to that. On 21 January he advanced 16 kilometers into the British line with 3 armored columns. The British were taken by surprise and had to retreat. On the 27th Rommel was north and northeast of Msus. On that day Churchill declared "We are facing a very bold and clever foe, and I may well say a great general!" On the 29th Benghazi was taken. Rommel was promoted to Colonel General.

Intercept Procedure [At Work]
Two great stations had been copying the Garrulus messages since the beginning of the year to make sure that none should be missed, and their intercepts were transmitted with "urgent" precedence by direct wire to Berlin. I should like to illustrate by example the effectiveness of this German operation. The British had carefully planned and prepared an action against Rommel's airfields. They meant to drop parachutists during the night with explosives to destroy the facilities. The action had been so carefully planned that it could not have failed its objective. Garrulus, radiant with joy, reported this to Washington. The message was sent about eight o'clock in the morning by the station in Cairo; it was received in Lauf immediately and transmitted to Berlin. At nine o'clock it was on the cryptanalyst's desk; at ten o'clock it was deciphered; at 10:30 it was in the Führer's Headquarters; and an hour later Rommel had it. He had half a day to warn his airfields. The British project was executed shortly after midnight. The parachutists got a warm reception; the action miscarried. Only at one airfield which disregarded the warning the British met with success.

February, March, and April passed quietly on the front. Rommel knew precisely how matters stood on the British side: their supplies and equipment, their strength, their plans. Both sides were bringing in reinforcements. After the middle of May the British began to spot extensive German movements and counted on an offensive in the near future.

On 26 May Rommel's famous offensive began. German tanks broke through at Bir Hakim and heavy tank battles raged for days near Acroma. Approximately 1,000 tanks and 2,000 to 2,500 self-propelled guns were engaged on the two sides. On 10 June Bir Hakim, the key to the British defense system, was taken. The Axis troops drove through in three columns. Sidi Rezegh was taken, and on the 19th the Egyptian frontier was reached. On the 21st encircled Tobruk was taken, along with 25,000 prisoners. This had been a bold masterstroke.

By 25 June Rommel had occupied Sollum, the Halfaya Pass, and Sidi Omar, and was in front of Sidi Barrani. Garrulus was still radioing his reports and Rommel was receiving precise information every hour. The British were amazed; Rommel seemed to have second sight. No matter what the British undertook he always anticipated it as if the British High Command had been keeping him posted.3 On 27 June General Ritchie was relieved as commander of the Eighth Army and Auchinleck assumed command in person.

[And on it went!]

[Retributarr]

Code-Breaker Battlefield Advantage!:

A thought has been buzzing around in my head for a while. That is... that... "who-ever... whom-ever" has access to secret code-breaker information... should then be able to take advantage of this 'Gift-Asset!'.

I don't know if this theory would work very-well in a solitaire... single player game?... where the "AI" in this/that instance... would be the sole beneficiary... could it take advantage of being able to see all of your 'Units' on the 'Game-Screen?' without you knowing it? ...in some useful manner without severely disrupting the playability of the Game?.

On the other hand... if you are playing "Rommel" in North Africa … and have this secret decoded intelligence information on the 'Enemy'... you should then be able to see most if not all of your opponents units on the 'Game-Map'.

Is something like this theoretical game-feature... a workable/feasible possibility... would there be any real purpose to any of these ideas or concepts?.

What about also situations such as "KURSK"... where the 'Russian-Player' would now be able to see all of the Axis-Units [Added: Initial Start Positions only!... unless historically the Russians were also continuously updated!.] without the hinderance of the 'Fog-Of-War'... since the Allies had furnished the 'Russians' with all of the necessary details and dispositions of the German Units emplaced on the Map.

Other similar events or situations could also be included in this effort!... where to be fair... the player should also have the option to turn it off if the execution or implementation of this variable is just too-much for them!.

[Stormchaser]

Code-Breaker Battlefield Advantage!:

A thought has been buzzing around in my head for a while. That is... that... "who-ever... whom-ever" has access to secret code-breaker information... should then be able to take advantage of this 'Gift-Asset!'.

I don't know if this theory would work very-well in a solitaire... single player game?... where the "AI" in this/that instance... would be the sole beneficiary... could it take advantage of being able to see all of your 'Units' on the 'Game-Screen?' without you knowing it? ...in some useful manner without severely disrupting the playability of the Game?.

On the other hand... if you are playing "Rommel" in North Africa … and have this secret decoded intelligence information on the 'Enemy'... you should then be able to see most if not all of your opponents units on the 'Game-Map'.

Is something like this theoretical game-feature... a workable/feasible possibility... would there be any real purpose to any of these ideas or concepts?.

What about also situations such as "KURSK"... where the 'Russian-Player' would now be able to see all of the Axis-Units [Added: Initial Start Positions only!... unless historically the Russians were also continuously updated!.] without the hinderance of the 'Fog-Of-War'... since the Allies had furnished the 'Russians' with all of the necessary details and dispositions of the German Units emplaced on the Map.

Other similar events or situations could also be included in this effort!... where to be fair... the player should also have the option to turn it off if the execution or implementation of this variable is just too-much for them!.

I mean, Fog of War being disabled for a mission has happened twice already, with Czechoslovakia and the bonus mission to trick the French Armies into fighting each other.
Now, I'm pretty sure it was disabled in those missions because they were more puzzle like mechanically compared to the standard missions, where knowing the enemy position makes things incredibly easier (imagine knowing all the enemies movements in Ebro, for instance. Knowing exactly where the reinforcements arrive allows your defenses to react that much quicker.). But I believe I recall the excuse for not having Fog of War was because of substantial intel.

So I can definitely see Intel efforts reducing/eliminating FoW in future missions. Wether or not it happens with standard combat missions will likely depend on wether Kerensky decides it tilts the balance in the player's favor to much or not.

[Tassadar]

Small changes to the tiers after playing some more:

Fast Rebase - up from D to B.
Envelopment - added a S+ possibility note about combination with Overwhelming Attack, possibly the most insane combination there is.
Field Repairs - down from B to C. The more I calculate and see it in action, the more marginal it proves to be.
First Aid - likewise down from B to C.

[GRippie]

Small changes to the tiers after playing some more:

Fast Rebase - up from D to B.
Envelopment - added a S+ possibility note about combination with Overwhelming Attack, possibly the most insane combination there is.
Field Repairs - down from B to C. The more I calculate and see it in action, the more marginal it proves to be.
First Aid - likewise down from B to C.

Let me second your S+. In a 1939 AO campaign and (no "rerolls" but started SCW with KT), as of Brest, I have "rolled" three Envelopment and two OA Heroes. I think I am going to have to quit and start over. It really isn't fun. It's like a walkthrough collecting enemy equipment.

[Tassadar]

Let me second your S+. In a 1939 AO campaign and (no "rerolls" but started SCW with KT), as of Brest, I have "rolled" three Envelopment and two OA Heroes. I think I am going to have to quit and start over. It really isn't fun. It's like a walkthrough collecting enemy equipment.

I've tested out this combination once so far and indeed put the unit in reserve duty in that run after some time, as it was making things too easy at times. It's then something I might resort to in particularly difficult encounters, but not forced to do so each mission. In the future when rolling those heroes I will use them on different units, or just retire for prestige (baring maybe the captured equipment run just for more variety in used things).

[OliverSky]

Good afternoon, gentlemen) I recently got acquainted with this wonderful game, but a question arose. Is it possible to remove the limit on heroes max 4. Sorry for my English - I'm from Russia

[Kerensky]

I've tested out this combination once so far and indeed put the unit in reserve duty in that run after some time, as it was making things too easy at times. It's then something I might resort to in particularly difficult encounters, but not forced to do so each mission. In the future when rolling those heroes I will use them on different units, or just retire for prestige (baring maybe the captured equipment run just for more variety in used things).

There is a new game mode that restricts only a single hero per unit (requires starting a new campaign).
Player's General traits got expanded in the latest patch to include several new options. Single hero per unit is a negative trait 'force dispersion'