AI levels

[lauter11]

When picking the AI difficulty, it would help if there was tool tip explaining the advantages/disadvantages. I'm sure it can be found in the manual, but I wouldn't want to have to look there every time.

Thanks.

[heinrich]

I like the idea, especially for the expected strength of enemy units...

[Squiboda]

Speaking of AI Levels, I really think the default level should be for your enemy to have full strength units. I played through the tutorial in .99 on the default level and most of the enemy units were at 5 or 8 strength.

I'm not even close to being a great PG player, but that was ridiculously easy. If the other campaigns have the same strengths at default level, it will definitely be too easy. Make the default difficulty the one where both sides are even. I think most people will start off with the default difficulty and it should at least be somewhat of a challenge.

[Squiboda]

I also forgot that the default setting gives you way too many core units and way too much prestige. Again, this was way too easy!

[apanzerfan]

And about the names: I am not sure that Rommel was a better general than Manstein.
Rommel did indeed incredible things in the desert and in France.
But Manstein was the one who put the plans of FAll Gelb together, he managed to stop several Soviet onslaughts, while his enemy outnumbered his troops, etc..

[uran21]

Speaking of AI Levels, I really think the default level should be for your enemy to have full strength units. I played through the tutorial in .99 on the default level and most of the enemy units were at 5 or 8 strength.

I'm not even close to being a great PG player, but that was ridiculously easy. If the other campaigns have the same strengths at default level, it will definitely be too easy. Make the default difficulty the one where both sides are even. I think most people will start off with the default difficulty and it should at least be somewhat of a challenge.

"Colonel" is default level, all units have strength 10 there.

[uran21]

And about the names: I am not sure that Rommel was a better general than Manstein.
Rommel did indeed incredible things in the desert and in France.
But Manstein was the one who put the plans of FAll Gelb together, he managed to stop several Soviet onslaughts, while his enemy outnumbered his troops, etc..

Personally I do not like names of difficulty levels for two reasons. First reason is there is no consistency in ranks. Second reason higher levels are germancentric. What if you play as Allies? And last I agree with you there can be a debate about who is better. Rommel is definitely overrated commander. He was a good tactician but no more than that who completely neglected operational and strategic situation. It looks like fame took front seat about this decision.

[Kerensky]

Rommel is definitely overrated commander.

Blasphemy!

In defense of the naming system, the main focus of Panzer Corps is Germany, although this may be awkward in the future.
As a point of interested though, you should have seen the name list I recommended.

[Squiboda]

When I start a new game, Lieutenant is the default setting not Colonel.

[uran21]

When I start a new game, Lieutenant is the default setting not Colonel.

Ah, true. It is default selected level, but something that considers as "normal" level is Colonel. That default setting is probably to stimulate users to play on easier levels first.

[Squiboda]

Ah, true. It is default selected level, but something that considers as "normal" level is Colonel. That default setting is probably to stimulate users to play on easier levels first.


Okay, so we agree that Lieutenant is the default level. And we agree the Colonel should be the "normal" level. Let's make it happen!

[Kerensky]

Thankfully, changing the default level is a fairly simple process. Be nice to have the option to reconfigure this in game though.