Fundimental Balance Change to Capture.

[Kerensky]

I also think your idea on unit captures has merits - Just because I captured 10 T34s doesn't mean I have 10 ready for action unless I expend some resources (including crew......the way it is right now its like you capture the equipment with its crew and they're willing to fight for you!)

I dunno, I see the limited availability of captured equipment to be an amalgamation of things. Complete, working units. Spare parts for units, specific fuel/ammo requirement for units. Crew who are knowledgeable to operate the unit. It's all compressed into that limited (10) figure.

[impar]

PC2 is a game, it has to be fun.
If players want to impose house rules, apply cheat codes or use cheese, let them.
Discussions about traits and heroes are pointless, let the ones who want to use them, use them, and the ones that dont want to use it, just dont use it.

And mods, use whatever you want in your SP game.

You can prevent them getting fuel and ammo but you cant impact their ability to fight unless you use sufficient force.

Exactly!
The suppression rate encircled units suffer must be linked to the weight\strength of the units making the encirclement.

... (including crew......the way it is right now its like you capture the equipment with its crew and they're willing to fight for you!)

And crew, of course! Totally forgot the obvious.

I dunno, I see the limited availability of captured equipment to be an amalgamation of things. Complete, working units. Spare parts for units, specific fuel/ammo requirement for units.

Most spare parts, technical know-how, special itens, logistical bureaucracy needed to maintain the equipment would not be available in the battlefield where the equipment was captured, but on workshops/offices some km/miles away.

Crew who are knowledgeable to operate the unit.

Most definitely not the crew. After all, captured infantry units arent available for purchase are they?
If you could... "persuade" captured enemy tank crews to fight for you, you would also be able to ... "persuade" captured infantry.

It's all compressed into that limited (10) figure.

When you go to the purchase screen, sure, of course, the 10 figure would contain all of that. Acquiring a 400 prestige tank in the purchase screen gets all of that, but when you capture 10 enemy tanks, you are not getting all of that. Thats why the prestige awarded by capture should not be the full cost in prestige of the unit captured. Even captured equipments may need some fixes (prestige spending) before being totally functional. Half prestige for capture seems reasonable.

[Kerensky]

When you go to the purchase screen, sure, of course, the 10 figure would contain all of that. Acquiring a 400 prestige tank in the purchase screen gets all of that, but when you capture 10 enemy tanks, you are not getting all of that. Thats why the prestige awarded by capture should not be the full cost in prestige of the unit captured. Even captured equipments may need some fixes (prestige spending) before being totally functional. Half prestige for capture seems reasonable.

But majority of feedback shows people are disincentived from fielding captured equipment for a variety of reasons. German units are better, captured equipment has limited stock, it goes out of date too fast because the campaign progresses time to fast... Having to pay to field them will only make that worse.

Before we rewrite the system, let's see how the system behaves in a new campaign environment. I see the capture system, and I think it's actually a better fit for a Grand Campaign. There are precious few chances to snag a Char B, which at the time is a fantastic vehicle (albeit a little slow). And after France... you go from May 1940 to June 1941, instantly obsoleting the Char B because you're seeing T34 and KV1s.

Right now, people are milking the capture system (and trophy trait) not because they want to field units, but because they are taking advantage of the prestige rewards.

Let's see a campaign designed around the former(unit) instead of the later(prestige), and see how it feels.

Could you imagine going to Spanish Civil War, and the only Panzer at your disposal is.... checks history link... a Panzer I. In an environment like that, I would theorize people would care about snagging something like a T26 just to have a vehicle with proper HA values more than they do about milking prestige.

Same goes for a long France campaign with the Char b. Same goes for a long Soviet campaign. It's really only when you get long barrel Panzer IV and of course Panther/Tiger that German tanks become massively better than Allied equivalents.

[impar]

But majority of feedback shows people are disincentived from fielding captured equipment for a variety of reasons.

Main drawback in using captured equipment is the reinforcement, the player has to play a parallel mini pokemon game to acquire enough parts to keep the unit in full (or over) strenght.
Not all want to bother with that.

Before we rewrite the system, let's see how the system behaves in a new campaign environment. I see the capture system, and I think it's actually a better fit for a Grand Campaign. There are precious few chances to snag a Char B, which at the time is a fantastic vehicle (albeit a little slow). And after France... you go from May 1940 to June 1941, instantly obsoleting the Char B because you're seeing T34 and KV1s.

It is not a rewrite, just a balance tweak. And on the prestige side of things.
As it is now, using a captured equipment is prestige free, the prestige you got on capture is the same you spend purchasing that unit. But you can use that same prestige to get a Panzer III or IV, nothing forces the player to use the captured equipment.
Players who would be inclined to use a CharB or the T34/KV1 duo would still use them, the ones who want to keep an all-german equipment army would so.
More scenarios of a GC would probably help on using captures, but it would still be a pokemon game.

It is just a prestige earning tweak.

Could you imagine going to Spanish Civil War, and the only Panzer at your disposal is.... checks history link... a Panzer I. In an environment like that, I would theorize people would care about snagging something like a T26 just to have a vehicle with proper HA values more than they do about milking prestige.

It would depend on the player. I use the IB from Poland to Norway, only upgrade to the IIC in France. IB, overstrengthed to 11 or 12 (whatever doesnt make it jump the core slots), is great in Poland, the added strength helps in the split and encirclement play style. More advanced tanks arent needed in those scenarios. Even the T26 in Spain would probably be overkill.

[panzeh]

I don't think anyone else is complaining that captured equipment as used by a player is too good- quite the opposite, making it less appealing just makes the problem worse. Most of the advantage in capturing in this game is in the prestige you get from it.

[Edmon]

I don't think anyone else is complaining that captured equipment as used by a player is too good- quite the opposite, making it less appealing just makes the problem worse. Most of the advantage in capturing in this game is in the prestige you get from it.

Yeah, that's why I said give it a 75% core slot cost. Honestly, it's finite and tricky to use. It's the prestige and how quickly encirclement ruins units ability to fight back (40% in a single turn for most) that is out of control.

[NETSCAPE]

Edmon, the last couple Multiplayer Scenarios I put up in the last couple of days use a prestige per turn method based on how many cities, towns and villages the player has possession of. This gives incentive to not just take but HOLD objectives.

I haven't tried LUA scripting but another idea would be to have a City hex that simulates a factory that produces (spawns) a specific unit type every X amount of turns. And prestige per turn could be generated by hexes simulating oil fields, mines or other resources.

[Retributarr]

I don't think anyone else is complaining that captured equipment as used by a player is too good- quite the opposite, making it less appealing just makes the problem worse. Most of the advantage in capturing in this game is in the prestige you get from it.

panzeh post: "Most of the advantage in capturing in this game is in the prestige you get from it:".

This situation "needs to be changed!"... "I" myself am guilty as charged for the above crime!.

To try to rectify this problem... it came to me... that why-not allocate "X"# of 'Unit-Slots' specifically for this purpose and this purpose only. Now!... with this setup in place, the player would now have the incentive and absolute necessity of utilizing this captured equipment 'Force-Structure'... to enhance his army-group capabilities.

[Schepel]

I have thought about this long and hard and I think there is a fundimental balance change that needs to occur to capture, because it just undermines the game's combat and economy so heavily.

At the moment, there are two really major problems in the balance:
1) Capturing is too powerful and one key reason for it being that way is it lets you print prestige. The second is just how quickly it disables the A.I. units without you needing to fire a single shot or do any combats, saving even more prestige.
2) Caputured units are generally not worth the effort or cost to deploy, so hardly anyone bothers unless it's something really special.

So, I think a good solution would be this:

1) Capturing no longer gives any prestige.
2) Captured units cost zero prestige to deploy and sell for nothing, and have 75% of their standard coreslot value to deploy.

So, now the main reason to capture is to actually get the units you capture and deploy them. The benefit of capture is that the units you get take up less coreslots and are free to use as you see fit. They are a finite resource, but one you will actually use if you have them, since they are not costing you prestige but whatever reserve amount of them you've got.

And now you can't print money, you will actually have to worry about using your limited resources to look after your German army.

Still think the POWER4 are still very uber simply because big encirclements with grasp quickly results in an AI that can't fight back, but at least now you won't be able to get mind meltingly wealthy off of it.

Thoughts?

I went through a full campaign with captured units on Field Marshall and Generalissimus. The reason why is simple. Contrary to your claim, most captured units are at least on par with your own roster or even better. Char B1 was a great help all the way to Moscow. The T-34 versions beat all early PZIII and PZIV versions. (The game is quite a-historical on that count, but whatever.)

I do quite agree that the prestige earned from surrenders prints prestige. It ought to be nerfed, but I think it is a horrible idea to offer BETTER equipment at a reduced core slot cost.

[Schepel]

When you go to the purchase screen, sure, of course, the 10 figure would contain all of that. Acquiring a 400 prestige tank in the purchase screen gets all of that, but when you capture 10 enemy tanks, you are not getting all of that. Thats why the prestige awarded by capture should not be the full cost in prestige of the unit captured. Even captured equipments may need some fixes (prestige spending) before being totally functional. Half prestige for capture seems reasonable.

But majority of feedback shows people are disincentived from fielding captured equipment for a variety of reasons. German units are better, captured equipment has limited stock, it goes out of date too fast because the campaign progresses time to fast... Having to pay to field them will only make that worse.

Before we rewrite the system, let's see how the system behaves in a new campaign environment. I see the capture system, and I think it's actually a better fit for a Grand Campaign. There are precious few chances to snag a Char B, which at the time is a fantastic vehicle (albeit a little slow). And after France... you go from May 1940 to June 1941, instantly obsoleting the Char B because you're seeing T34 and KV1s.

Right now, people are milking the capture system (and trophy trait) not because they want to field units, but because they are taking advantage of the prestige rewards.

Let's see a campaign designed around the former(unit) instead of the later(prestige), and see how it feels.

Could you imagine going to Spanish Civil War, and the only Panzer at your disposal is.... checks history link... a Panzer I. In an environment like that, I would theorize people would care about snagging something like a T26 just to have a vehicle with proper HA values more than they do about milking prestige.

Same goes for a long France campaign with the Char b. Same goes for a long Soviet campaign. It's really only when you get long barrel Panzer IV and of course Panther/Tiger that German tanks become massively better than Allied equivalents.

As I stated in my previous post, I did a full campaign on top difficulty with as a main rule to use as much captured stuff as I could. It works. (Incidentally, I would really love an allied campaign to use all that nice equipment in somewhat larger numbers!)

[o_t_d_x]

1. We need different kinds of encirclements: A few weak split units surround 40 russian divisions and they loose nearly instantly all their fighting power ? Thats nonsense. In reality this weak encirclement couldnt prevent the russians from breaking out of the encirclement. (and kill the germans who encircle them) But if you have 60 dividsions that surround 20 russian divisions and leave not the slightest spot to deliever supply to the encircled troops, then their fighting ability should be weaker of course.

2. So we need an ai, that doesnt loose its ammo, fuel so fast and isnt surpressed that fast. And it should always try to break out, because thats the only intelligent thing to do if you are encircled. Btw: the game completly ignores the common tactic of destroying equipment, so the enemy cant use it.

3. I am sure that there will be realism mods and then there will be no "money" for capturing units at all. In reality it was often not possible to use enemy equipment, because you dont have enough parts and even the fuel was different the russians used. (at least i read bout that i think but i am not perfectly sure to be honest...)

I disagree. The encirclement mechanics work fine. If you try and do it with too weak a force then the enemy CAN break out.

The issue is with the AI settings. They don't actively attempt to break them far to often. Some of the encirclements seen in the AAR section would be easy to break out of by a semi competent player and the encircling troops easy prey (many split/weak units)

When I played kiev (the encircelment tutorial map as i call it because its so easy and boring to enc. all enemys...), i realized that the main problem is the surpression: I think its enough pain to loose ammo and fuel, i wouldnt surpress units at all through encirclement. I always thought that supression means that you are forced back into cover because of bombardment etc....why supression at all when encircled ??? And so fast ? The 6 army fought a long time in stalingrad, with your game rules they would have been totally surpressed after 5 days.

But it doesnt matter for me any longer because i play with green army now (its more realistic then an elite only army) and i dont need prestige so i ignore the whole capture thing. I am in america now with 40000 prestige, no trophys, no liberator and no boring encirceling. I played like panzer corps 1, it was much fun. Encirceling an artifical idiot is not my definition of fun, so at the end we can agree in one thing: a new game mechanic needs a new ai that can use it.

[ragingrondo]

1. We need different kinds of encirclements: A few weak split units surround 40 russian divisions and they loose nearly instantly all their fighting power ? Thats nonsense. In reality this weak encirclement couldnt prevent the russians from breaking out of the encirclement. (and kill the germans who encircle them) But if you have 60 dividsions that surround 20 russian divisions and leave not the slightest spot to deliever supply to the encircled troops, then their fighting ability should be weaker of course.

2. So we need an ai, that doesnt loose its ammo, fuel so fast and isnt surpressed that fast. And it should always try to break out, because thats the only intelligent thing to do if you are encircled. Btw: the game completly ignores the common tactic of destroying equipment, so the enemy cant use it.

3. I am sure that there will be realism mods and then there will be no "money" for capturing units at all. In reality it was often not possible to use enemy equipment, because you dont have enough parts and even the fuel was different the russians used. (at least i read bout that i think but i am not perfectly sure to be honest...)

I disagree. The encirclement mechanics work fine. If you try and do it with too weak a force then the enemy CAN break out.

The issue is with the AI settings. They don't actively attempt to break them far to often. Some of the encirclements seen in the AAR section would be easy to break out of by a semi competent player and the encircling troops easy prey (many split/weak units)

When I played kiev (the encircelment tutorial map as i call it because its so easy and boring to enc. all enemys...), i realized that the main problem is the surpression: I think its enough pain to loose ammo and fuel, i wouldnt surpress units at all through encirclement. I always thought that supression means that you are forced back into cover because of bombardment etc....why supression at all when encircled ??? And so fast ? The 6 army fought a long time in stalingrad, with your game rules they would have been totally surpressed after 5 days.

But it doesnt matter for me any longer because i play with green army now (its more realistic then an elite only army) and i dont need prestige so i ignore the whole capture thing. I am in america now with 40000 prestige, no trophys, no liberator and no boring encirceling. I played like panzer corps 1, it was much fun. Encirceling an artifical idiot is not my definition of fun, so at the end we can agree in one thing: a new game mechanic needs a new ai that can use it.

I would assume that under game rules, the city of Leningrad or Stalingrad would have had "Supply Hexes" scattered throughout the city, and that is why they don't collapse as Kiev does. Also under no circumstances was Stalingrad ever completely encircled the way Kiev or Leningrad were.

[KesaAnna]

But majority of feedback shows people are disincentived from fielding captured equipment for a variety of reasons. German units are better, captured equipment has limited stock, it goes out of date too fast because the campaign progresses time to fast... Having to pay to field them will only make that worse.

Before we rewrite the system, let's see how the system behaves in a new campaign environment. I see the capture system, and I think it's actually a better fit for a Grand Campaign. There are precious few chances to snag a Char B, which at the time is a fantastic vehicle (albeit a little slow). And after France... you go from May 1940 to June 1941, instantly obsoleting the Char B because you're seeing T34 and KV1s.

Right now, people are milking the capture system (and trophy trait) not because they want to field units, but because they are taking advantage of the prestige rewards.

Let's see a campaign designed around the former(unit) instead of the later(prestige), and see how it feels.

Could you imagine going to Spanish Civil War, and the only Panzer at your disposal is.... checks history link... a Panzer I. In an environment like that, I would theorize people would care about snagging something like a T26 just to have a vehicle with proper HA values more than they do about milking prestige.

Same goes for a long France campaign with the Char b. Same goes for a long Soviet campaign. It's really only when you get long barrel Panzer IV and of course Panther/Tiger that German tanks become massively better than Allied equivalents.

I'm not sure this is exactly what you are saying ....

But , yeah , my main complaint about the campaign and the game in general is the length.

That is , Poland should be three , four , or five scenarios.

Norway should be two scenarios , not one.

France and the Low Countries , again , three , four or five scenarios.

North Afrika could stand another one or two , or three , scenarios ?

I haven't played North America myself yet , but what I have seen , excuse me , looks ridiculous. The entire eastern seaboard is one scenario ?

Was this game designed by Europeans who are still clueless about the realities of American geography ?

Granted , North America is not the absolutely huge swathes of trackless territory you see in Russia. But North America is pretty darned big.

For example , France is --- very roughly --- about the size of Virginia with half , or a bug chunk of , North Carolina included. That only adds up to , roughly , One - tenth the land area of the historical Confederacy.

If we are talking about only that part of the historical Confederacy east of the Appalachians , then , ok , France is only one - third to one - fifth of that area.

In short , a North American campaign would have been every bit as epic as a Russian or North Afrikan campaign.

Granted , I suppose you had to release this game some time , and not in a ten years some time.

Anyway , yes , even if you do capture the requisite ten strength of Char B's , the campaign has already progressed so far in time as to make the prospect of using them fanciful and unrealistic.

[elven]

I think you will see more scenarios in each location when they make a grand campaign. This was just the first release and base game. It is comparable to the original Panzer Corps. There will be more coming.

[Rifraff]

Might just be me but. I would like to actually play something before I complained about it.

[Retributarr]

There are precious few chances to snag a Char B, which at the time is a fantastic vehicle (albeit a little slow). And after France... you go from May 1940 to June 1941, instantly obsoleting the Char B because you're seeing T34 and KV1s. [Retrib: Situation needs to be Corrected:]

Could you imagine going to Spanish Civil War, and the only Panzer at your disposal is.... checks history link... a Panzer I. In an environment like that, I would theorize people would care about snagging something like a T26 just to have a vehicle with proper HA values more than they do about milking prestige. [Retrib: Agreed!...That's why 'Hitler' didn't want to get too involved & "Stukas" are the remedy for strong Tanks:]

Same goes for a long France campaign with the Char b. Same goes for a long Soviet campaign. It's really only when you get long barrel Panzer IV and of course Panther/Tiger that German tanks become massively better than Allied equivalents. [Retrib: Yes... the player has little to no opportunity to effectively implement real usage of these captured vehicles!:]

But , yeah , my main complaint about the campaign and the game in general is the length.
[Retrib: You are 'So-Right!!!' on this point and as well... on the rest of your comments below!:]

That is , Poland should be three , four , or five scenarios.

Norway should be two scenarios , not one.

France and the Low Countries , again , three , four or five scenarios.

North Afrika could stand another one or two , or three , scenarios ?

I haven't played North America myself yet , but what I have seen , excuse me , looks ridiculous. The entire eastern seaboard is one scenario ? [Retrib: Exactly... that is 'Ridiculous!!!:]

Was this game designed by Europeans who are still clueless about the realities of American geography ? [Retrib: The U.S.A. is arger than all of Europe combined... nearly rivaling the size of Russia or China!:]

Granted , North America is not the absolutely huge swathes of trackless territory you see in Russia. But North America is pretty darned big. [Retrib: Freakin Big!!!:]

For example , France is --- very roughly --- about the size of Virginia with half , or a bug chunk of , North Carolina included. That only adds up to , roughly , One - tenth the land area of the historical Confederacy.

If we are talking about only that part of the historical Confederacy east of the Appalachians , then , ok , France is only one - third to one - fifth of that area.

In short , a North American campaign would have been every bit as epic as a Russian or North Afrikan campaign.

Anyway , yes , even if you do capture the requisite ten strength of Char B's , the campaign has already progressed so far in time as to make the prospect of using them fanciful and unrealistic.
[Retrib: "Absolute"-"Obsolete"-"Redundancy!!!":]

For what its worth!:
Ooohhh Cripe!... I forgot to mention 'Canada'...?. Since the 'Arctic-Circle' is not too far north of most of us here!... so!... I'm guessing that only slightly more than two-thirds of Canada is reasonably comfortably habitable... where-as something like further up north... such as... "Alaska"... it is just "too-far north" and "too cold" most of the year. Other-wise... even-so... Canada is quite large anyways... however...i'm not quite sure if it is larger than the United States or not?... but its close enough!.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[dalfrede]

Ooohhh Cripe!... I forgot to mention 'Canada'...?. Since the 'Arctic-Circle' is not too far north of most of us here!... so!... I'm guessing that only slightly more than two-thirds of Canada is reasonably comfortably habitable... where-as something like further up north... such as... "Alaska"... it is just "too-far north" and "too cold" most of the year. Other-wise... even-so... Canada is quite large anyways... however...i'm not quite sure if it is larger than the United States or not?... but its close enough!.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada is larger than the USA land wise, but 80% of Canadians live within 50miles [80km] of the US border.

The goal was to have the multiple campaigns the same length.
When the historical path was laid out, the length of the fictional path was set.
That left 3 USA scenarios.
That resulted in map scaling issues, there are several mountain ranges were left out of California. They just don't fit in the scale of the map.
South of the Sierra Nevada, Calif. has ~21 peaks above 10,000', in Italy south of the Alps there are ~0.

In the MidWest steppes[1], the larger Ohio [minor] River merges with the smaller Mississippi [major] River to become the Mississippi.
Then downstream, the larger Missouri [minor] River merges with the smaller Mississippi [major} River and remains the Mississippi.

Life is a series of compromises, get use to it.

[1.] What do you mean, you never watched the TV series 'Little House on the Steppe' with Merlin Olsen?

[FunPolice749]

Interesting topic. I have not arrived at any definitive conclusions yet, but it does give a lot of food for thought. During the beta, splitting units was pretty much universally considered meh and something you'd never want to do. In part, cheap Flexible Command was an attempt to motivate people to use it more. Perhaps, it's OP as a result. But in general, people finding unlikely and unobvious combinations of synergistic traits is the whole point of commander and hero trait game. I might need to adjust some of the most outrageous combos, but I'll approach it carefully, because it's a game and it needs to be fun in the first place.

Making captured units using less slots is an interesting idea. But it might have significant implications in longer campaigns (Grand Campaign style) where you can have lots of captured equipment and where at the same time progression of equipment is much slower. You could end up fighting with captured army which will be much larger than normal as a result. Even in Wehrmacht campaign people manage to fight mostly with captured units, even if they need the right traits for that. But imagine a campaign which is several times longer.

I'm curious if the "power4" approach is equally powerful in FFA games against several AIs. Scenario design could have a lot to do with these issues.

I know this is an old post but what if for captured units there was a limit on how many you could field in a given campaign? Then you make it so they cost less core slots which gives people a reason to use them while also making it harder to have a full army of captured equipment. Take for example the standard Whermacht campaign and let’s say you put the at 3 units. So that would mean players could use certain units like the T34s for less core slots but stops abuse of this system. That limit could easily just be stated at the start of the campaign and could be changed based on the campaign so it doesn’t ruin the grand campaign. You could even have a perk increase that limit so people could still have the option to field a lot of captured equipment.

[Blade0]

Now, after playing the eastern paths, totally agree. Capture should produce no prestige, but captured units must be free to use.
As I mentioned, I would get rid of slot constraints completely, and rely on prestige only, with some mechanisms for reducing the "snowball effect".

[Horseman]

Now, after playing the eastern paths, totally agree. Capture should produce no prestige, but captured units must be free to use.
As I mentioned, I would get rid of slot constraints completely, and rely on prestige only, with some mechanisms for reducing the "snowball effect".

Every game in the series (i'm including PG and such here)has had slots as a mechanic to stop the player getting a huge core force.

It works fine IMO and just trying to use prestige to stop a snow ball wouldn't work nearly as well. The top players would just end up with more units than Germay could field in total during the war and not so good players would end up with a tiny core that can't win anymore.

The PC1 grand campaign had a mechanism (prestige cap) to limit players core via prestige costs. It wasn't by any stretch of the imagination perfect but mirrors the effect core slot cost causes (giving a reason not to just use the best units available like on PG).

I like it a lot.