AOredone updated

[adiekmann]

if I could with a snap of my fingers and magically force the game to work a particular way, the following is some of what it would include:

• Collector (revised). No more than two of any identical unit. This would require some more "finetuning," as Defiant called it, and that was what I was alluding to in my previous post. This too would not be a blanket rule across the board. It would vary more or less, for different units based on historical realities. For example, you should be allowed more than 2 Wehr Infantry, but probably only 1 Tiger tank. Some play testing and experimentation would be needed to figure out exactly the right formula for each unit. To me, this is more important than Limited Stock, in any form.

• Limited Stock (revised). Here the key to getting it right is variation between units. Not all units should be limited, or to the same degree as others. Only 9xx Tiger Is were produced during the entire war, and that should be reflected in the Limited Stock setting for that unit. Others set accordingly, up or down, based on how many were produced during the war, or at least this would be a starting point. For gameplay purposes, some tinkering would probably be needed. It would be cool if it could even change or evolve during the campaign to reflect different time periods, but that's me and my love for historical scenarios to be named or set as close to possible to history.

• A much smarter AI. It doesn't need to be some genius self-aware AI from sci-fi that infiltrates your bank account and sends all your money to Alex or Kerensky's retirement fund in the Caymans or such , but just enough to stop it from doing stupid stuff like attacking the same unit 5 times in a row that's supported by a powerful, camouflaged AT/ART/AA. Also enable it to figure out combined arms approach to well fortified and defended defensive positions.

• This last one is the easiest, but variation among similar infantry units across different nations. Base Italian, German, Soviet, and British infantry units for example should not all have the same exact stats. I like it better the way it was in PC1.

With these fundamental changes in mind it would free up a campaign/scenario designer to make more even keeled, balanced campaigns/scenarios. My main objective here would be realism and historical accuracy as much as possible without ruining the basics that make the game popular. The ability to adjust or turn off all of these things should be available too for players who are not looking for the same realism that others are.

Love to hear ideas from others on my ideas, and any additional ones that you may have. Perhaps this could influence Panzer Corps 3 down the road.

[DefiantXYX]

• Collector (revised). No more than two of any identical unit. This would require some more "finetuning," as Defiant called it, and that was what I was alluding to in my previous post.

I am not a big fan of this feature and never played it. I dont like hard settings, like 1 or 0. Give me 50 Tiger parts for a year and if am doing a good job I can run two units, maybe even three. If I put my tiger in the first scenario into a city and infantry nearly kills it I will run out of tigers this year...and in some cases there are too many models for certain units, like I said before Panther (P), Panther D, Panther A,Tiger (P), Tiger...even worse if you play with Grondels PC1 mod, there are so many FW 190-Versions, even a limited stock make no difference, since you can choose between 5 models that are all basically the same

But like you already said, there a good features that require some finetuning, which we wont see in PZ2. If theres a PZ3 we can just hope for the best, to make this game even better.

[Grondel]

if I could with a snap of my fingers and magically force the game to work a particular way, the following is some of what it would include:

• Collector (revised). No more than two of any identical unit. This would require some more "finetuning," as Defiant called it, and that was what I was alluding to in my previous post. This too would not be a blanket rule across the board. It would vary more or less, for different units based on historical realities. For example, you should be allowed more than 2 Wehr Infantry, but probably only 1 Tiger tank. Some play testing and experimentation would be needed to figure out exactly the right formula for each unit. To me, this is more important than Limited Stock, in any form.

Something i´d rather like to have is a system that forces u to unlock the fielding of certain units.
- No 15cm guns unless u have 4 of a mix of 7.5cm/10.5cm.
- No Tigers/Panthers unless u have 4 Panzer III/VI for each of them.
I guess u get the point in this. could be done for most units that are around, forcing a more diverse unit composition.

• Limited Stock (revised). Here the key to getting it right is variation between units. Not all units should be limited, or to the same degree as others. Only 9xx Tiger Is were produced during the entire war, and that should be reflected in the Limited Stock setting for that unit. Others set accordingly, up or down, based on how many were produced during the war, or at least this would be a starting point. For gameplay purposes, some tinkering would probably be needed. It would be cool if it could even change or evolve during the campaign to reflect different time periods, but that's me and my love for historical scenarios to be named or set as close to possible to history.

By just adding a simpel factor to the slider number this could be accomplished. Sadly we will never get the game acces needed to do this.
The factor is fairly simpel.
300 divided by unit-prestige-cost times unit-base-max-strength.
U get more cheap and less expensive units. Would turn the available limited stock into a usefull feature.

• A much smarter AI. It doesn't need to be some genius self-aware AI from sci-fi that infiltrates your bank account and sends all your money to Alex or Kerensky's retirement fund in the Caymans or such , but just enough to stop it from doing stupid stuff like attacking the same unit 5 times in a row that's supported by a powerful, camouflaged AT/ART/AA. Also enable it to figure out combined arms approach to well fortified and defended defensive positions.

The PC1 AI was copy pasted into PC2 without any care for new mechanics. It will even try to bomb Vic-hexes with strategics if there is no other target, like u could in PC1.

• This last one is the easiest, but variation among similar infantry units across different nations. Base Italian, German, Soviet, and British infantry units for example should not all have the same exact stats. I like it better the way it was in PC1.

If u have the same units/rules for single and multiplayer, having diff unit stats is a huge balance issue. No small developer has the resources to do that.

...main objective here would be realism and historical accuracy as much as possible...

No, u don´t want that. I played several scenarios that had very accurate unit compositions, down to the battalion. With accurate unit names and evrything. Maps redrawn from historical battle field maps. It sure is interesting to watch it unfold, it has zero replayability.
U will get the same result as in reality and it is ultra boring to play.

sers,
Thomas

[adiekmann]

• Collector (revised). No more than two of any identical unit. This would require some more "finetuning," as Defiant called it, and that was what I was alluding to in my previous post.

I am not a big fan of this feature and never played it. I dont like hard settings, like 1 or 0. Give me 50 Tiger parts for a year and if am doing a good job I can run two units, maybe even three. If I put my tiger in the first scenario into a city and infantry nearly kills it I will run out of tigers this year...and in some cases there are too many models for certain units, like I said before Panther (P), Panther D, Panther A,Tiger (P), Tiger...even worse if you play with Grondels PC1 mod, there are so many FW 190-Versions, even a limited stock make no difference, since you can choose between 5 models that are all basically the same

But like you already said, there a good features that require some finetuning, which we wont see in PZ2. If theres a PZ3 we can just hope for the best, to make this game even better.

I don't like it as it currently is and don't use it either. I like how it forced the player to use a diverse amount of equipment, in in real, but needed some major adjustments like I and others have complained about since it first became available. Grondel's idea of needing to earn better units (e.g. first must have 4 Pz.IIIs before you can have a Pz.IV) I find interesting from a gameplay perspective, but otherwise a bit silly and more complicated than necessary. The balance for a given time period would absolutely need to be taken into consideration so that if you are fielding 8 panzer units your are not forced into having one of them be a Pz.I in 1942! That sort of thing would be ridiculous. But this general idea, as Edmond probably originally conceived it, was to force players from having only the "best" units from each class in their core at any given time and that's what I am interested in. I do so already to a limited extent using my own "house rules," but these sort of variations effect scenario balance and the size and composition of the AI's forces. That is why it would be important to include them in the overall design of the game.

Your point of 50 Tigers is why I meant the right balance of collector and limited stock rules would need to be figured out. Some variation of these ideas would need to be figured out and I don't know what those exactly would be at this point. Of course play testing could reveal issues that would need some adjustment.

[88Flak]

Anything that can be done to improve the AI would be vital for better game play with some of the AO scenarios. Can’t tell you how frustrating it is to try to keep the 7th Panzer division from making suicidal attacks, leaving Panzers if poor terrain so they can be attacked by infantry or leaving artillery units on the front lines…

[88Flak]

The large scale battles are epic and it takes a lot longer to get through them.

Dont you get bored of it? I mean can you name 3 battles of 1944/1945 and describe what make these map so special?
I guess thats the reason the DEVs made these rumanian/hungary/persia maps, so that you dont have to fight russian armies from left to right 10x in a DLC.
Especially in the AOredone version I cant believe that the russians still have tanks and units left and get even stronger in each maps, after I am killing large armies all the time, over and over again.

Thats the problem in 1946: After a good start, its always the same over and over again.

I don’t get bored probably because I’m so biased towards the large Panzer battles. For me it’s the main course of the game and the special missions are necessary diversions.

I understand the appeal of switching it up - even to the point of drastically inflating former allies combat power. They had to make a game with enough challenge to keep us PC2 veterans interested. I just prefer to square off against the main antagonist. I know the big scenarios are somewhat similar, but I really enjoyed Riga, Voronezh and Saratov because they are big tank battles that if they were historical, they would have had a major impact on who would hold the initiative in the east.

[88Flak]

I noticed something in my first campaign. I think starting in 1943, my heros were no longer dumped at the end of the year. I didn’t have to reassign for 43, 44 and 45.

Did you figure something out? I still had to do it for the early years though.

[DefiantXYX]

I noticed something in my first campaign. I think starting in 1943, my heros were no longer dumped at the end of the year. I didn’t have to reassign for 43, 44 and 45.

Same for me. Of course I prefer it that way, its a lot of work to reassign everything and remember the combinations;)

Btw. the heroe search doesnt work for everything. ZeroSlots cant by found by search for example.

[DefiantXYX]

I am replaying sealion right now. I noticed that the double attack of the ships does not work, if you swith the mode in a turn. You can just switch and fire, in the next turn you can fire twice. Not sure if bug or intended.
First I was upset about the naval changes but after some playings its fine. Ship now have far more impact on the outcome of the game, without being overpowered.
In the second sealion map there is no airfield in the south, so its hard to intercept the enemy fleet before it gets close to your own fleet. Is this intended to make sure, that your naval dies? Since I am playing DvG I had to cheat a bit and give my own ships some more HP. It still feels wrong, there are british ships that a far stronger than the bismark...

I still have to complain about the hanger feature. The planes just spawn too fast, that cripples your whole airforce, since you can never ever use your bombers without protection, plus you have to protect your ships and you high prestige units. AI doenst care about AA, if it can still do some damage.
The respawn should be delayed by one turn imo.

[Andrea69]

In the second sealion map there is no airfield in the south, so its hard to intercept the enemy fleet before it gets close to your own fleet. Is this intended to make sure, that your naval dies? Since I am playing DvG I had to cheat a bit and give my own ships some more HP. It still feels wrong, there are british ships that a far stronger than the bismark...

The airfield in the south is no more there because in that area there were no RAF airfields. To compensate this I added several sea hexes in the south that, if used wisely with the aid of the submarines, let you save your fleet almost entirely, at least enough to get the two naval heroes later in the campaign. Also agree about the British ships being way OP

I still have to complain about the hanger feature. The planes just spawn too fast, that cripples your whole airforce, since you can never ever use your bombers without protection, plus you have to protect your ships and you high prestige units. AI doenst care about AA, if it can still do some damage.
The respawn should be delayed by one turn imo.

The hangar feature imho works very well in this part of the campaign to simulate the overall superiority of the RAF over the Luftwaffe, but I agree that in a more general perspective the respawn should be delayed by one turn

[Bee1976]

I still have to complain about the hanger feature. The planes just spawn too fast, that cripples your whole airforce, since you can never ever use your bombers without protection, plus you have to protect your ships and you high prestige units. AI doenst care about AA, if it can still do some damage.
The respawn should be delayed by one turn imo.

The hangar feature imho works very well in this part of the campaign to simulate the overall superiority of the RAF over the Luftwaffe, but I agree that in a more general perspective the respawn should be delayed by one turn

But thats realistic! I would keep that feature unchanged. Germany had to invest in massive antiair, and the allies still did a lot of damage with their air force.


coonsidering AI:
Well, it would really help if the AI makes more strategic choices. more like a chess programm.

[DefiantXYX]

The airfield in the south is no more there because in that area there were no RAF airfields. To compensate this I added several sea hexes in the south that, if used wisely with the aid of the submarines, let you save your fleet almost entirely, at least enough to get the two naval heroes later in the campaign. Also agree about the British ships being way OP

Ah you mean you should try to escape with your fleet into the south? Well, maybe something for the next playthrough, but I am quite sure if I move the fleet out of my bomber support I wont have a chance, if the enemy fleet is following me instead of shooting on my land units.

But thats realistic! I would keep that feature unchanged. Germany had to invest in massive antiair, and the allies still did a lot of damage with their air force.

Not sure about that. In the battle of britain germany was not outnumbered in the air. I dont see a reason why the british should have such a big advantage just talking about the numbers.
And it feels very strange with all the repawns all the time. Especially in the end, when I cann see the planes respawn. With Heinrich Bär, 1,5 Rapidfire and First Strike I can take out 2 15 HP planes each turn, just to make them respawn in the left corner.
My 8,8 AA gun with camo and double support also takes out 2 planes each turn. You kill 100 planes each turn...that feels just strange. It ends up in farming kills.

A good thing could be to give the respawn planes a unique painting. So you can decide wether its wise to kill a plane (because its not coming back) or better let it live. But well, the AI likes to waste 1/2 HP units. Like if it knows, that it will get fresh ones

[Andrea69]

Ah you mean you should try to escape with your fleet into the south? Well, maybe something for the next playthrough, but I am quite sure if I move the fleet out of my bomber support I wont have a chance, if the enemy fleet is following me instead of shooting on my land units.

Thanks to the extra southern hexes you definitely can run away to come back later when the UK fleet will be weakened enough... the key here is using well your powerful aux submarines and also you want to guard the southern coast with a heavy unit (let's say a Matilda II) to attract the barrage fire from English battleships, but this is not mandatory.

Not sure about that. In the battle of britain germany was not outnumbered in the air. I dont see a reason why the british should have such a big advantage just talking about the numbers.

Well, in fact the reason is quite simple: the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of England, without even being able to come close to having any kind of air supremacy. I think this should be taken into account in any battle simulation scenario relating to that period.

[adiekmann]

let you save your fleet almost entirely, at least enough to get the two naval heroes later in the campaign. Also agree about the British ships being way OP

Which two naval heroes are these? I am deep in 1943 now, but I don't remember getting 2 naval heroes even though I saved most of the German ships with the exception of a destroyer or two.

[DefiantXYX]

You get 1 AA and 1 Art. Hero in the second scenario in albania.
When did you play 1940? Afair it was patched in later, maybe you played an too old version.

[Grondel]

You get 1 AA and 1 Art. Hero in the second scenario in albania.
When did you play 1940? Afair it was patched in later, maybe you played an too old version.

it was there with the first version of AOredone.
U need to save Blücher + GrafZeppelin + AdmiralScheer + Bismarck + AdmiralHipper for both heroes



or 3+ of the above for 1 hero.




sers,
Thomas

[adiekmann]

Oh, okay. Yes, I got them. I didn't remember that they were "naval" heroes. I looked and thought of them as artillery and AA heroes. Misunderstanding solved.

[DefiantXYX]

I am on another run, trying to find out, if I can beat DvG on all maps
I got a problem with the first railgun you can get.
Somehow I could upgrade an art-gun to the railgun and the heroes kept assigned on the gun. Since I had a zero slot hero I overstrengthened the gun to 15. In the next year when all heroes get unassigned I lost that bonus and now I have a railgun with 12 core slots!
Can I somehow "reset" the gun, to a strength of 10 and 7 core slots? I cheated the max. strength to 10, but the core slots dont change.
I am in late 1943 now, not sure what happens in 1944 in the training scenario, when you can repair and upgrade the guns

[Andrea69]

I am on another run, trying to find out, if I can beat DvG on all maps
I got a problem with the first railgun you can get.
Somehow I could upgrade an art-gun to the railgun and the heroes kept assigned on the gun. Since I had a zero slot hero I overstrengthened the gun to 15. In the next year when all heroes get unassigned I lost that bonus and now I have a railgun with 12 core slots!
Can I somehow "reset" the gun, to a strength of 10 and 7 core slots? I cheated the max. strength to 10, but the core slots dont change.
I am in late 1943 now, not sure what happens in 1944 in the training scenario, when you can repair and upgrade the guns

Mmm, I think I understand what happened... yes you can use the limited availability pieces of the railgun to upgrade one of your guns with its heroes, but then when it comes the heroes unassignement you cannot keep them as the railguns have the no management trait and you can't reassign them to it... guess you should have done like me buying a fresh new railgun (but not overstrenghted as by the way it has also the single entity trait) then in the training 1944 scenario you'll have new field repairs and reduced core slots heroes attached by script (and the railgun overstrenghted to 15 as well)

Anyway I am finalizing the AO46 Redone playtesting, very soon I'll post here a detailed changelog of what is coming, stay tuned

[DefiantXYX]

Ok, the upgrade in Kummersdorf 1944 fixed the gun.

This time the guns were upgraded to 15, got 2 hero-traits and now have 7 core slot requirement. Last time it did not work, like I said here they before they had like 12 core slots. I guess this time it worked like intended.
But I also noticed the guns can only do 10 damage. They have the trait "unit fire always at full strenght", so looks like they ignore the strength of 15?!