Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
) or is it a bug? They didn't arrive ... they appeared from nowhere!!!
From my own tinkering, I think it's a complicated relationship to not only how the AI is programmed, but how maps are set up.rezaf wrote:I think in this regard Rudankort's AI is probably a bit too single minded.
I understand the reasoning behind it, but I think it's more than a little annoying when the AI surrounds every objective city with the standard assortment of defense weaponry (AA/AT/ART) and then some Inf.
The scenario designer(s) emphasized the problem by often having each objective starting out with all those defenses.
That, coupled with the fact that most maps are a little "tight", i.e. you have not much room to maneuver around obstacles, means a lot play very samey.
Charge headfirst into a brickwall of defenses, try to dispose of ART, try to dispose of AA to allow planes to help, mop up.
Move on to identical scenario at next objective.
Even scenarios depicting battles that were supposedly all about capturing objectives quickly play out like WW1 trench warfare.
I have to admit I'm actually having a little more fun playing the original PG missions from my campaign*. The maps are usually more open, and while they often start off with you facing a fortrified front of strong opponents, they open up a bit once you fought your way past that.
Partially, this is because the maps are larger and more open, partially, this is because everything in PC is horribly expensive, so the AI runs out of prestige fast and cannot afford to dig into a perfectly arranged defensive position everywhere.
But while the AI has its flaws, it is actually not entirely stupid, I've often seen if retreat forces like AT and AA from the frontlines to have them fortrify objectives instead.
Anyway, I hope, eventually, a patch will include the possiblity to define "staging zones". I.e., if you buy units mid-mission, they appear in staging zones on the border of the map.
That'd neatly solve the situations pointed out in the op.
_____
rezaf
* This isn't intended as self-praise, as I haven't designed those maps, SSI has.
"Radically changing the campaign for every single scenario" is totally different from just slightly breaking up the monotony of kill arty, kill AD, kill AT, kill INF, move on to next objective (unless you haven't been able to move next to the city, in which case the AI might reinforce, forcing you to start the cycle anew).Kerensky wrote:Oh, and I also realized that maybe 'too complex' is a bad thing. Panzer Corps is the only the first installment and thus the basic game after all. Maybe it should be designed to be somewhat casual friendly after all it's not super hardcore strategy but a fairly lightweight game. I think the current Panzer Corps campaign satisfies that.
As a brand new player, would you really want the campaign to radically change for every single scenario? That's a bit overwhelming to say the least.
But that's not the way the game is played anyway? If you had unlimited turns and/or unlimited unit slots you could use a combination of infantry, tanks, recons, arty and air support to capture every defended objective - but you don't. You have to split your forces, quickly approach defended objectives and make do with a less ideal combination of units and less time.rezaf wrote:... just slightly breaking up the monotony of kill arty, kill AD, kill AT, kill INF, move on to next objective (unless you haven't been able to move next to the city, in which case the AI might reinforce, forcing you to start the cycle anew).
coulda shoulda woulda didntrezaf wrote:"Radically changing the campaign for every single scenario" is totally different from just slightly breaking up the monotony of kill arty, kill AD, kill AT, kill INF, move on to next objective (unless you haven't been able to move next to the city, in which case the AI might reinforce, forcing you to start the cycle anew).Kerensky wrote:Oh, and I also realized that maybe 'too complex' is a bad thing. Panzer Corps is the only the first installment and thus the basic game after all. Maybe it should be designed to be somewhat casual friendly after all it's not super hardcore strategy but a fairly lightweight game. I think the current Panzer Corps campaign satisfies that.
As a brand new player, would you really want the campaign to radically change for every single scenario? That's a bit overwhelming to say the least.
A France map could have involved a decision to drive all your forces towards your main objective OR, for a DV with Sealion opportunity, defeat large amounts of british troops dug in near the otherwise unimportant city of Dunkirk, weakening your main thrust in the process.
A Barbarossa map could have involved weak opposition when starting the scenario, with an almost guaranteed Marginal Victory, but heavily defended positions in the rear necessary to ensure a Decisive.
A Kursk map could have required the player to not capture a single objective, but to hunt down and kill a fixed amount of Soviet tanks, not losing too much german ones in the process.
Even a strictly casual game such as Portal constantly changes which gimmicks you have to use and/or gives you new ones - do you think this overwhelms casual Portal players?
_____
rezaf
In the original PG a *** star Level bomber could neutralise the enemy AA in one attack. And re-supply was impossible if an enemy unit or plane was over or within 1 hex. Here the ai can keep re-supplying so a level bomber is next to useless.rezaf wrote:Charge headfirst into a brickwall of defenses, try to dispose of ART, try to dispose of AA to allow planes to help, mop up.
Move on to identical scenario at next objective.
Even scenarios depicting battles that were supposedly all about capturing objectives quickly play out like WW1 trench warfare.
rezaf wrote:"Radically changing the campaign for every single scenario" is totally different from just slightly breaking up the monotony of kill arty, kill AD, kill AT, kill INF, move on to next objective (unless you haven't been able to move next to the city, in which case the AI might reinforce, forcing you to start the cycle anew).Kerensky wrote:Oh, and I also realized that maybe 'too complex' is a bad thing. Panzer Corps is the only the first installment and thus the basic game after all. Maybe it should be designed to be somewhat casual friendly after all it's not super hardcore strategy but a fairly lightweight game. I think the current Panzer Corps campaign satisfies that.
As a brand new player, would you really want the campaign to radically change for every single scenario? That's a bit overwhelming to say the least.
A France map could have involved a decision to drive all your forces towards your main objective OR, for a DV with Sealion opportunity, defeat large amounts of british troops dug in near the otherwise unimportant city of Dunkirk, weakening your main thrust in the process.
A Barbarossa map could have involved weak opposition when starting the scenario, with an almost guaranteed Marginal Victory, but heavily defended positions in the rear necessary to ensure a Decisive.
A Kursk map could have required the player to not capture a single objective, but to hunt down and kill a fixed amount of Soviet tanks, not losing too much german ones in the process.
Even a strictly casual game such as Portal constantly changes which gimmicks you have to use and/or gives you new ones - do you think this overwhelms casual Portal players?
_____
rezaf
)
