Allies, who you going to play first?

[KeldorKatarn]

The only realistic way would be making the good units very very expensive. Historically the army would have used only the best stuff, always. It only used other stuff because it was cheap, available and easy to get. A commander couldn't just ask for the best stuff always, on the other hand a prestigeous commander probably could before anyone else. And lets not forget this is a game. Most people play this game exactly for that reason, to one day have that mighty Tiger/Panther force in their core and kick ass.

I don't get the point about choices. You already have the choice. Nobody forces you to use the best stuff. But introducing rule sets that punish a player for using the best stuff that is not good game design. That is enforcing the opinion of an elite group of good players that historical cores should have more incentives onto other players who couldn't care less.
I'm sorry but here I have to step out of my geeky gamer role and speak as a game developer. I understand exactly why it is the way it is. Maybe there's some balancing tweaks that can be made to make other units more interesting, but stuff that is punishing players that just want their favorite tanks in their core, like denying them core slots, that's just not good design. Especially since introducing it via patch so long after release will just piss most people off.
But as I said, even in a sequal, punishing people by denying them slots or such things is just not an option. An incentive to use some stuff should be positive. There should never be a negative incentive not to use your favorite stuff. And denying core slots would just be that, punishing the average joe. I dare you to go out to a player who plays PzC just for fun, knows very little about WW2 history and is happy if he could tell the difference between and panzer III and IV if he saw one. All this guy knows is: Tigers are awsome and I want them. And he doesn't give a shit that having 12 of them is unrealistic or unbalanced in somebody else's opinion. And a patch limitiing his ability to get what he wants will do nothing but ruin his fun.

So while I agree that some units are simply not very useful at the moment, I'm thinking that even the current rule of denying prestige with a high value core is a pretty daring thing to have with a patch. it's probably not such a problem since prestige is probably abundand right now and not so much a problem and the limitation is pretty small in comparison. But I think it's as far as I'd go. If this isn't enough I'd rather give the player a prestige bonus for using even lower quality cores and maybe balance the prestige output altogether a bit more. Maybe tweak some unit values a bit more.
But the fact remains: Some of the most used units were just not that good. Most were just used that often because they were realiable after having been used that long, the forces knew how to handle them, the industry was warmed up on producing them and any change was very costly. If everything could have easily been switcher around everybody would have been driving nothing but panthers and tigers. But that just wasn't feasable. but ther certainly were some elite units that always got the best stuff first, and let's not forget that we command something between a division and a corps in panzer corps. (even though the scale is sometimes a bit bigger even). There were a LOT of panzer divisions and it is not that impossible a thought that if any commander had a track record like the player usually pulls off in the game, he would have had no problem to equip 1 or 2 of his divisions with always the newest stuff. That wouldn't have meant most of the army was able to.

Weaker units should be weaker and sorry Shermans WERE crap. They were used because nothing else was there and no better tanks were requested because the american army was doing a crap job in reacting to the Panther threat. One cannot force the player to buy stuff that he knows is crap just because the army was historically forced to do just that.

I understand the frustration sometimes but enforcing stuff like this will just piss off most of the player base, nothing else.

This is just my opinion of course, but I really feel these change requests are never about making the game better but giving those of us who like historical cores, some kind of a bonus for doing so. And honestly... if we're stupid enough to play with such weak cores (I do as well, I have way too much infantry) then we deserve what we get. We can't go around and first make the game harder on ourselves and then complain that the game should somehow offer us some compensation for something that we chose ourselves. I might feel right at first, but I feel that would just be wrong. using a historical core SHOULD be tough. The devs have already gone very far I think in giving that behavior a prestige advantage or rather punishing players who always go for the best stuff. I think everything that goes way beyond that is just unreasonable.

[Zhivago]

The only realistic way would be making the good units very very expensive. Historically the army would have used only the best stuff, always. It only used other stuff because it was cheap, available and easy to get. A commander couldn't just ask for the best stuff always, on the other hand a prestigeous commander probably could before anyone else. And lets not forget this is a game. Most people play this game exactly for that reason, to one day have that mighty Tiger/Panther force in their core and kick ass.

I don't get the point about choices. You already have the choice. Nobody forces you to use the best stuff. But introducing rule sets that punish a player for using the best stuff that is not good game design. That is enforcing the opinion of an elite group of good players that historical cores should have more incentives onto other players who couldn't care less.
I'm sorry but here I have to step out of my geeky gamer role and speak as a game developer. I understand exactly why it is the way it is. Maybe there's some balancing tweaks that can be made to make other units more interesting, but stuff that is punishing players that just want their favorite tanks in their core, like denying them core slots, that's just not good design. Especially since introducing it via patch so long after release will just piss most people off.
But as I said, even in a sequal, punishing people by denying them slots or such things is just not an option. An incentive to use some stuff should be positive. There should never be a negative incentive not to use your favorite stuff. And denying core slots would just be that, punishing the average joe. I dare you to go out to a player who plays PzC just for fun, knows very little about WW2 history and is happy if he could tell the difference between and panzer III and IV if he saw one. All this guy knows is: Tigers are awsome and I want them. And he doesn't give a shit that having 12 of them is unrealistic or unbalanced in somebody else's opinion. And a patch limitiing his ability to get what he wants will do nothing but ruin his fun.

So while I agree that some units are simply not very useful at the moment, I'm thinking that even the current rule of denying prestige with a high value core is a pretty daring thing to have with a patch. it's probably not such a problem since prestige is probably abundand right now and not so much a problem and the limitation is pretty small in comparison. But I think it's as far as I'd go. If this isn't enough I'd rather give the player a prestige bonus for using even lower quality cores and maybe balance the prestige output altogether a bit more. Maybe tweak some unit values a bit more.
But the fact remains: Some of the most used units were just not that good. Most were just used that often because they were realiable after having been used that long, the forces knew how to handle them, the industry was warmed up on producing them and any change was very costly. If everything could have easily been switcher around everybody would have been driving nothing but panthers and tigers. But that just wasn't feasable. but ther certainly were some elite units that always got the best stuff first, and let's not forget that we command something between a division and a corps in panzer corps. (even though the scale is sometimes a bit bigger even). There were a LOT of panzer divisions and it is not that impossible a thought that if any commander had a track record like the player usually pulls off in the game, he would have had no problem to equip 1 or 2 of his divisions with always the newest stuff. That wouldn't have meant most of the army was able to.

Weaker units should be weaker and sorry Shermans WERE crap. They were used because nothing else was there and no better tanks were requested because the american army was doing a crap job in reacting to the Panther threat. One cannot force the player to buy stuff that he knows is crap just because the army was historically forced to do just that.

I understand the frustration sometimes but enforcing stuff like this will just piss off most of the player base, nothing else.

This is just my opinion of course, but I really feel these change requests are never about making the game better but giving those of us who like historical cores, some kind of a bonus for doing so. And honestly... if we're stupid enough to play with such weak cores (I do as well, I have way too much infantry) then we deserve what we get. We can't go around and first make the game harder on ourselves and then complain that the game should somehow offer us some compensation for something that we chose ourselves. I might feel right at first, but I feel that would just be wrong. using a historical core SHOULD be tough. The devs have already gone very far I think in giving that behavior a prestige advantage or rather punishing players who always go for the best stuff. I think everything that goes way beyond that is just unreasonable.

This is an age-old argument on here, and the only reason I am even taking the time to reply is to reinforce the fact that Panzer Corps is a GAME set in a historical time frame. There really are no "true" links to actual history, other than the names of the equipment used, and the battlefields fought on. There is no historical context within the game to even begin to make an argument of what a "historical core" should look like.

The point of the game is to put together a core force that 1.) WINS battles; and 2.) fits the player's strategy and style of play. There is NO other purpose to the game. In order to create a "bonus" for a "more historical core" the game would need accurate historical contexts along the line of Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series. If a player is assigned the 6th Army Corps in 1942, then some kind of system of the divisions, battalions, etc., can be established--even down to using the actual commanders. We would know how big hexes are, how many miles it is between Moscow and Minsk, etc. Panzer Corps is not that game, and never was meant to be.

Panzer General was designed in the early 1990's as an entry-level turn-based hex wargame that attempted to allow casual gamers to get the hex-grid wargame experience without having to learn NATO counters/tiles for units, or get bogged down with heavy logistical production and supply issues that can slow the game down.

Having said this, I am replaying the 39-45 East campaign again (for about the 10th time), and I have 11 infantry units and 8 artillery units in my 37 core-limit core at present. I like using artillery and infantry, with armor and air as a supporting role. I know there are probably people who play this game with 2 infantry units, and 30 tanks, but that's not my gig. But that is the point of the game--a player can choose to build whatever kind of core force they want to--whatever works for their playing style. I am against handicapping the game to shut off a player's ability to create the kind of core he/she wants.

[KeldorKatarn]

I am against handicapping the game to shut off a player's ability to create the kind of core he/she wants.

Exactly my point

[Anfield]

As was said above, I to was not impressed with how poor the P47 was against ground targets, it should be much better. Likewise I thought the P51 would be a better fighter. And dont get me started on why the British 25lbs artillery gun only gets a range of 2?? I try to play historical lists but using that was just killing me.

Core size could be larger, was hoping it would be. But there is always the cheat code, I tried for one campaign doing that and found that by just allowing 4 more core to be deployed perbattle made the game better to play.

As for people upset about allied armor being poor, it was damn poor. You cant play the Allies like we all did with the germans, totally different style is needed. After D-Day I think my core must be about 30. Im running a British Infanty Division, a US Infantry Division and a US Armor Division, total tanks combined 5! Total infantry 10! Infantry, artillery and airpower win the day for the Allies, not tanks. Though to be fair, I played the same ratio almost for the germans haha

One thing that was clear, was how much harder starting a game as the US is, they have it much harder than starting as the British. And the 1940 really had a few battles that could have been left out. I would much rather have seen some of the larger battles later in the war broken down into two battles. For example, have D-Day, then another battles fighting in land off the gains made the first few days. Then play Cobra.

But over all im enjoying it, just wish it was a DLC, I want more!!! Many of the limits and issues mentioned by others, I avoid by self regulating how I play, what units etc. And just like I would point out with Germans players, you can win this game with lots of infantry and limited tanks. And honestly, just blowing units up with a 15 strength Tiger isnt fun at all to play. Oh and I think every Tiger my Allies have face so far, killed by infantry

[Anfield]

I am against handicapping the game to shut off a player's ability to create the kind of core he/she wants.

Exactly my point

Im against this too, dont want anything that turns people away from playing this game. However, it was be nice now with the new options sections to be able to click a limited numbers of cetain units to play. A restricter tab if you will.

[KeldorKatarn]

It would be pretty boring if this game played the same as PzC just with other unit sprites, don't you think? A little national identitiy should be present and manifest itself in the need for different tactics.

[Zhivago]

I am against handicapping the game to shut off a player's ability to create the kind of core he/she wants.

Exactly my point

Im against this too, dont want anything that turns people away from playing this game. However, it was be nice now with the new options sections to be able to click a limited numbers of cetain units to play. A restricter tab if you will.

You can be your own restricter tab each time you fill a core slot. If you only want 5 tanks in your core, you have complete control to do that now, or disband any units and buy new ones.

[kbrowne]

Weaker units should be weaker and sorry Shermans WERE crap. They were used because nothing else was there and no better tanks were requested because the american army was doing a crap job in reacting to the Panther threat. One cannot force the player to buy stuff that he knows is crap just because the army was historically forced to do just that.

I'm not actually sure if we agree or disagree on this! My point is not that the designers should have made Shermans better in the game - if anything, the 76mm M4A3's are too powerful relative to the Sherman Firefly. I'm saying they should have compensated in the game as the US Army did in the war, by using air, arty, and numbers. And I don't believe that would be inimical to less historically savvy users - to the contrary, it potentially offers a much more interesting game where German and American forces require different play styles. This is a core concept in the broader RTS genre - games like Civilization, Age of Empires, and StarCraft force users to adapt their style to the faction they're playing.

I really like some of the ideas flying around too; having Tigers take two slots vs a single slot for a Pz IV could work, and Diablo shows you can make the concept very accessible. I personally like the regenerating unit for Americans - brings home that "Arsenal of Democracy" thing. Naturally, I have no idea which can be done through an expansion pack, but that's the benefit of being a forum poster!

[robman]

I think when you play a historical war game, you oughta learn something, including something about the constraints that commanders faced at the time. Some of these constraints are already modeled in the game, others aren't. The constraint that is not modeled that causes the most griping is the fact that really cool units are limited only by time of availability, whereas in reality they were limited in supply, especially when new to production. There is a fairly strong consensus on the forum that this constraint should not be rolled in to the basic game. But it could be included as an option, much as we currently have the ability to toggle weather, fog of war, and reform units and play with sliders for prestige and AI smarts and so on. Without changing the basic game engine, it shouldn't be too hard to create options to increase the marginal cost of fancy new unit purchases (i.e., the first Tiger costs 1x the normal cost, the second costs 2x), to make cost per unit dependent upon time from introduction (i.e., a Tiger in 1943 costs more than a Tiger in 1944), and/or to limit the number of new units of a given type available for purchase per turn, perhaps using an element of chance. It would be fun to experiment with options like these, but no one would have to use them.

[Zhivago]

I think when you play a historical war game, you oughta learn something, including something about the constraints that commanders faced at the time. Some of these constraints are already modeled in the game, others aren't. The constraint that is not modeled that causes the most griping is the fact that really cool units are limited only by time of availability, whereas in reality they were limited in supply, especially when new to production. There is a fairly strong consensus on the forum that this constraint should not be rolled in to the basic game. But it could be included as an option, much as we currently have the ability to toggle weather, fog of war, and reform units and play with sliders for prestige and AI smarts and so on. Without changing the basic game engine, it shouldn't be too hard to create options to increase the marginal cost of fancy new unit purchases (i.e., the first Tiger costs 1x the normal cost, the second costs 2x), to make cost per unit dependent upon time from introduction (i.e., a Tiger in 1943 costs more than a Tiger in 1944), and/or to limit the number of new units of a given type available for purchase per turn, perhaps using an element of chance. It would be fun to experiment with options like these, but no one would have to use them.

As long these types of core restrictions are an option, I'm all for it. However, there is no historical reference in this game to support such restrictions. Does one Tiger represent one Tiger? If that is the case, and you have 5 Tiger tanks in your core, that doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if you are supposed to be an "elite" panzer commander on the rise within the Wermacht. You would likely have your choice of weapons. Around 1,500 Tiger I's were built in WW2. If one Tiger equals one Tank, then a core with 5, or even more, does not sound out of line to me.

[KeldorKatarn]

1 tiger is probably more like one of the schwere Panzerabteilungen. so bataillon size. at least that scale makes sense for most maps I guess.

[Aloo]

I am against handicapping the game to shut off a player's ability to create the kind of core he/she wants.

Exactly my point

Im also against this but at the moment find creating a core I want impossible. I cant play the game using weaker units as I cant have more of them to balance my force. The point is that using some limiting factor other than prestige you could build a core that would present a similar strength but using different numbers of units.

This could be done in many ways and it would still allow the player to build his all Panther/Tiger core but at the same time allow others to buy instead a larger number of Marders, Hetzers, Pz III and IV. This would not limit the player but instead add a new choice.
The easiest system would be to limit the core size not using slots but prestige, so if you could field an army of f.e. a maximum of 10k prestige you could buy 10 Tigers or twice as many lighter tanks.
The problem is that this system would add a new dimension to a game that was supposed to be simple and change the rules in a very radical way. I dont think this isdoable in this game.

[Zhivago]

1 tiger is probably more like one of the schwere Panzerabteilungen. so bataillon size. at least that scale makes sense for most maps I guess.

But that is pure speculation on your part. The devs of this game (or Panzer General for that matter) never gave any indication as to the unit scale. That's just not a defined part of the game.

[Zhivago]

I am against handicapping the game to shut off a player's ability to create the kind of core he/she wants.

Exactly my point

Im also against this but at the moment find creating a core I want impossible. I cant play the game using weaker units as I cant have more of them to balance my force. The point is that using some limiting factor other than prestige you could build a core that would present a similar strength but using different numbers of units.

This could be done in many ways and it would still allow the player to build his all Panther/Tiger core but at the same time allow others to buy instead a larger number of Marders, Hetzers, Pz III and IV. This would not limit the player but instead add a new choice.
The easiest system would be to limit the core size not using slots but prestige, so if you could field an army of f.e. a maximum of 10k prestige you could buy 10 Tigers or twice as many lighter tanks.
The problem is that this system would add a new dimension to a game that was supposed to be simple and change the rules in a very radical way. I dont think this isdoable in this game.

True, but you have to look at replacement/repair costs for the weaker German armor units. When you are up against an IS-1 or IS-2, a Marder III, or a Hetzer, or a Pz III or IV are going to get mauled. Replacing those losses costs prestige. Tigers, and Tiger IIs have more survivability. They cost more, but they save more prestige over time because they do not take devastating losses to late war Allied/Soviet equipment.

[Aloo]

True, but you have to look at replacement/repair costs for the weaker German armor units. When you are up against an IS-1 or IS-2, a Marder III, or a Hetzer, or a Pz III or IV are going to get mauled. Replacing those losses costs prestige. Tigers, and Tiger IIs have more survivability. They cost more, but they save more prestige over time because they do not take devastating losses to late war Allied/Soviet equipment.

Thats true, but the question in this case is: would the developers need to use so many IS tanks if the core was more balanced and much easier to define due to the prestige limit. Maybe that tank could become less common and the devs could also add more variety to the opposing force. Not to mention that balancing the scenarios would be easier.Anyhow I dont see such changes as possible in this version of the game.

[Zhivago]

True, but you have to look at replacement/repair costs for the weaker German armor units. When you are up against an IS-1 or IS-2, a Marder III, or a Hetzer, or a Pz III or IV are going to get mauled. Replacing those losses costs prestige. Tigers, and Tiger IIs have more survivability. They cost more, but they save more prestige over time because they do not take devastating losses to late war Allied/Soviet equipment.

Thats true, but the question in this case is: would the developers need to use so many IS tanks if the core was more balanced and much easier to define due to the prestige limit. Maybe that tank could become less common and the devs could also add more variety to the opposing force. Not to mention that balancing the scenarios would be easier.Anyhow I dont see such changes as possible in this version of the game.

You are asking for things that are not really possible because the game has not defined the parameters of what a "core" is. What is the definition of a balanced core? 10 infantry, 10 artillery, 5 AT, and 5 tanks, and 5 aircraft? Or 5 infantry, 5 artillery, 1 AT, 20 tanks, and 10 aircraft? There is no defined historical basis to define what is "balanced" and what is "unbalanced." What is the justification for making a type of unit, be it a tank, or an aircraft, or artillery piece, more rare? If a player was playing a DEFINED, HISTORICAL German army group, or division, or battalion, then you could impose those type of limits because you could say the 502nd Panzer Battalion only had X number of tanks in November 1944, and the types of tanks it had were X, Y and Z, and in what quantity.

Again, the purpose of the game for a player to WIN the game by capturing the scenario objectives as quickly as possible, with the least amount of casualties as possible, while maintaining (or gaining) as much prestige as possible. How does forcing someone to only use 1 Tiger tank, and instead make them use 5 Panzer IIs or III's make the game more realistic? I play on FM, setting 2 (if it works?). I have a pretty balanced core in my mind (10 infantry, 8 arty units, 9 aircraft, and 9 tanks at the end of 1942 East so at the present).

[KeldorKatarn]

1 tiger is probably more like one of the schwere Panzerabteilungen. so bataillon size. at least that scale makes sense for most maps I guess.

But that is pure speculation on your part. The devs of this game (or Panzer General for that matter) never gave any indication as to the unit scale. That's just not a defined part of the game.

Well it's not 100% speculation. It can't be divisions because artillery and Anti tank divisions don't exist. They were part of divisions. Regiments is unlikely too, since aside from Tank, Infantry and Artillery regiments, everything else was lower scale.

bataillons make sense because all of the unit types in the game actually existed on that level, and most of the specific units did as well.
below bataillons it doesn't make sense anymore because of scale and unit compositions. On some maps Companys and platoons might make sense but for that there's missing unit types and stuff that just doesn't work.

So just from the unit types bataillons seems to be the best abstractions. Yes it's all still speculation and on several maps it doesn't fit the scale at all, but at least from the unit types it makes the most sense most of the time.

But I agree that the game doesn't really care most of the time when it comes to scenariodesign, which I don't have a problem with. I use unit scale mostly for Roleplaying purposes. but I have to say, using a bataillon size as a basis for historical core design usually works very well.

[Aloo]

True, but you have to look at replacement/repair costs for the weaker German armor units. When you are up against an IS-1 or IS-2, a Marder III, or a Hetzer, or a Pz III or IV are going to get mauled. Replacing those losses costs prestige. Tigers, and Tiger IIs have more survivability. They cost more, but they save more prestige over time because they do not take devastating losses to late war Allied/Soviet equipment.

Thats true, but the question in this case is: would the developers need to use so many IS tanks if the core was more balanced and much easier to define due to the prestige limit. Maybe that tank could become less common and the devs could also add more variety to the opposing force. Not to mention that balancing the scenarios would be easier.Anyhow I dont see such changes as possible in this version of the game.

You are asking for things that are not really possible because the game has not defined the parameters of what a "core" is. What is the definition of a balanced core? 10 infantry, 10 artillery, 5 AT, and 5 tanks, and 5 aircraft? Or 5 infantry, 5 artillery, 1 AT, 20 tanks, and 10 aircraft? There is no defined historical basis to define what is "balanced" and what is "unbalanced." What is the justification for making a type of unit, be it a tank, or an aircraft, or artillery piece, more rare? If a player was playing a DEFINED, HISTORICAL German army group, or division, or battalion, then you could impose those type of limits because you could say the 502nd Panzer Battalion only had X number of tanks in November 1944, and the types of tanks it had were X, Y and Z, and in what quantity.

Again, the purpose of the game for a player to WIN the game by capturing the scenario objectives as quickly as possible, with the least amount of casualties as possible, while maintaining (or gaining) as much prestige as possible. How does forcing someone to only use 1 Tiger tank, and instead make them use 5 Panzer IIs or III's make the game more realistic? I play on FM, setting 2 (if it works?). I have a pretty balanced core in my mind (10 infantry, 8 arty units, 9 aircraft, and 9 tanks at the end of 1942 East so at the present).

Im not asking for anything Ive said that such modification are most likely not possible in this game. Im also pretty sure I didnt ask for a realistic/balanced core. What I suggested is if people need some system that allows for using different cores with similar chances for victory, than you can limit the core not by using slots but by limiting max prestige to be deployed. A units rareness, that you talk about would be defined by its prestige cost, which in turn would be based on its combat stats.

Also I dont agree on your definition of the purpose of the game. I find a lot of fun in playing slower and experimenting with different units and dont really care about speed, limiting causalities too much or farming prestige.

So Im looking for a hypothetical solution for the player to play any core he wants to while at the same time allowing him to have a chance to win.