How to solve this single most significant balance issue?

[fenglicao]

One of the greatest advances of PC over PG is that the Unit balance is far better now, and a variety of cheaper units have found their usefulness in a core. Must congrat the dev team for achieving this! Though some further balancing may still be needed, like most if not all AAs should be allowed to switch to attack ground targets, probably to the AT class since others seem not right, though the smaller caliber ones will only be effective against soft targets. Speaking of switching, it is a great feature over PG. I hope the Tac Bombers can also switch to Naval Bombers, which can only be done at an airfield/carrier, while try to make the Level Bombers to be true, effective Strategic Bombers. Historically level bombing was very ineffective against naval targets, wasn't it? At Midway, the decision to load whether anti-ground or anti-naval weapons of the Jap bombers played a huge role in the outcome of that battle. So hopefully this can be somewhat reflected in the game where enemy Navy suddenly show up and a player better be prepared to switch their bombers.

Back to the real topic, I thought the biggest balance problem remaining, is that in late campaign scenarios, a player would have an army of pure 4-5 star, overstrengthed, top of the line Tanks/Fighters, that really kills the balance and a lot fun of the game. The overstrength is a fun feature and should not be removed. Efforts have been already made to limit the experience gain, like the extremely small Exp gains once you reach 4, 5 stars. This is probably done to the limit now and a bit annoying already as many times you make a big kill with almost no Exp gain. Then there is the Exp cap in the DLCs, which is very arbitrary and a bit annoying too.

I propose to solve this by capping the Exp of the elite replacements. By giving different Exp caps at different stages of the war, it can effectively control the overall experience level of the core units, with a very good excuse: historical accuracy. 4, 5 star elite replacements were just not available during the war.

To compensate this, make the Exp gain at higher levels easier (how much easier I don't know). So players will see more direct effects of their own actions: gain good amount Exp when making kills, while lose Exp if taking loss. This will change how players use their most elite units, and be more satisfying when someone can actually reach 5 stars. This also gives a purpose for Exp gain after reaching 5 stars, to buffer against future loss. Right now Exp after 500 seems bit pointless as no one would do green replacement for their 5 star units.

I know RPG like feeling is a very important part of this game and this change may make some players cry. So maybe this can be left as an option on the difficulty settings. Maybe more rewarding features can be added in connection with casualties, kill counts, medals, and heroes to enhance the RPG feelings. To me, I’d rather play a more realistic, balanced game. BTW, I’d really like to have the scenario casualty screen back, since it helps with the intelligence of the current scenario.

A step even further is to allow players to buy 1 star, 2 star and 3 star replacements (not above current unit Exp level), with each star twice as expensive as the previous one (instead of twice as hard to gain). This way it will better control the overflow of prestige, and make players to really choose between better equipment and better Exp. I’m sure this will encourage players to keep some medium priced units in their core.

If the Exp gains at higher levels are better, then the Exp penalty during upgrade can be applied to further balance things out.

What do you guys think?

[fenglicao]

BTW, when control-click, can an expected Exp gain also be displayed next to the expected kill/supression? Many times Exp gain is a very important consideration when choosing which unit to attack which target. Right now I still don't know the specifics of how experience gain is calculated, and when you get the bonuses.

[DrkCon]

I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to be simultaneously arguing against "arbitrary XP caps" while supporting a reinforcement system that caps XP. You seem to feel 5 star units unbalance the game, yet feel hampered by the slow gains of higher level units.

Your "Elite Replacement Star Level" cap concept is already in the game. The first DLC only allows you to get to 2.5 Stars. While it may feel constrained, it directly addresses your issue with level 5 overstrengthed units in early campaigns.

Another of your suggestions was to make Exp gain for higher units easier. Which, would result in more level 5 units faster, which would be what you argued against in the 2nd paragraph.

Maybe I just dont understand what it is you are suggesting.

[rezaf]

I hope the Tac Bombers can also switch to Naval Bombers, which can only be done at an airfield/carrier, while try to make the Level Bombers to be true, effective Strategic Bombers. Historically level bombing was very ineffective against naval targets, wasn't it? At Midway, the decision to load whether anti-ground or anti-naval weapons of the Jap bombers played a huge role in the outcome of that battle. So hopefully this can be somewhat reflected in the game where enemy Navy suddenly show up and a player better be prepared to switch their bombers.

I disagree. Thing is, this would make these bombers even less useful than they are now. It's like rail transportation - sound nice on paper, but put into practice, it sucks and basically noone uses it. You'd have to waste AT LEAST two turns with your strat bomber, one for flying to the airfield and the second for performing the switch. How long would it take in reality to retrofit? I seem to recall that in some of the japanese/us aircraft carrier duels, planes were retrofitted multiple times in a couple of hours.
In PzC, every turn usually represents a day, though...
I'd have many ideas to improve the usefulness of aircraft, but I'll spare you reading them - they'd probably take too much effort to implement and it's not sure they have loopholes which would diminish their effect. As it stands, air power is implemented VERY abstractly, like in the original PG, and I guess it'd be prudent for a remake to stick with it being that way.

that really kills the balance and a lot fun of the game.

Disagree again. I though the uber-units in late PG campaigns were pretty fun sometimes.
Anyway, the developers of PzC agree with you about that topic, and several steps were taken to prevent such uber-units.
Elite reinforcements are now VERY expensive, especially for the (also much more expensive) late game units.
XP effects are now pretty low. There are caps in place, and for some units, the overstrength XP brings is almost the only benefit.

On the other hand, XP is now gained at very quick pace, especially the early stars.
Overall, this makes experienced units less valuable, but it also means they are more expendable.

Personally, I play with modified settings to make XP matter more again, but have greatly reduced the pace at which it is gained.
That's especially nice in the DLCs, as it prevents you constantly banging your head against the XP-limit-glass-ceiling.

I think nice-to-have's for modding (and possible official addons/DLCs) would be a way to set the max (and possibly min) XP for a scenario, and also the min XP for purchased units (core units purchased in a campaign). Neiter of these is essential, but if easy to implement, they should be considered at some point.

Other than that, since I can mod XP to my liking, I don't feel a change is necessary. $0.02 and all.
_____
rezaf

[deducter]

To compensate this, make the Exp gain at higher levels easier (how much easier I don't know). So players will see more direct effects of their own actions: gain good amount Exp when making kills, while lose Exp if taking loss. This will change how players use their most elite units, and be more satisfying when someone can actually reach 5 stars. This also gives a purpose for Exp gain after reaching 5 stars, to buffer against future loss. Right now Exp after 500 seems bit pointless as no one would do green replacement for their 5 star units.

I know on Manstein, I use certain elite units in specific circumstances. For instance, I have a +3 initiative Fallschirmjager unit, which is absurdly good in close terrain when it is overstrengthed. I use it almost exclusively to attack soft targets in cities/forest and not for much else. Similarly, I have a +2 Attack/+2 Defense PzIVD, which I always keep elite-reinforced, and I use it mostly to attack target softened by artillery bombardment so as to preserve its overstrength for as long as possible. I believe there's a screenshot in my AAR somewhere near the end of a scenario and that PzIVDis still at 13 strength, because I used it very carefully. I also have a +3 defense SE PzIIIF, which I am careful to use to anchor my lines as opposed to sending it rushing out rashly, and it rarely takes damage either.

XP effects are now pretty low. There are caps in place, and for some units, the overstrength XP brings is almost the only benefit.

There's little point in discussing this until DLC 41 comes out. Just wait a week or two...

[fenglicao]

You'd have to waste AT LEAST two turns with your strat bomber, one for flying to the airfield and the second for performing the switch.

No I don't mean to switch the Strat Bombers. They can't be switched. I meant to switch the Tac Bombers. Historically effective naval bombers (dive and topedo bombers) are Tac Bombers, not level bombers. It is just a little weird in PzC that only level bombers do real damage on ships. I know this is for game balance to allow level bombers to be more useful. I just thought if we want to be more historically accurate while not destroying the game balance is to let the Tac Bombers do a switch to be anti-naval.

Just my personal opinion on a not so important issue.

[/quote]

[fenglicao]

I must be a very poor writer. Most responses seem to not quite get what I wanted to say...my apology.

When I wrote

I hope the Tac Bombers can also switch to Naval Bombers,

I meant to switch it to be anti-naval, not to be Level Bombers.

[Locarnus]

I like the experience cap for elite replacements a lot.

Eg if you have a unit @ 100 EXP down to 5 STR in GC39, you have 2 choices:

1) Free green replacements. The unit has then 10STR again, with 50EXP

2) Elite replacements capped to half the current max experience for the campaing (which is 225 EXP for GC39, so eg 110EXP cap for elites)
The unit would then have 10STR with 100EXP


If you want to reinforce a unit @220EXP which is at 5STR in GC39, the choices would be:

1) Free green replacements. The unit will then have 10STR @ 110EXP

2) Elite replacements. The unit has then 10STR @ 165EXP ( [220*5+110*5]/10, the first addend is the original unit, the second addend the reinforcements capped at 110EXP)

[MartyWard]

Why not have elite replacement reduce experiance less than green ones do instead of not causing any loss of experiance?

[Rudankort]

On the other hand, XP is now gained at very quick pace, especially the early stars.

Just to clarify this. Early stars are gained faster, but late stars - more slowly, and overall it takes longer to get 5 stars in PzC than it was in PG.

I think nice-to-have's for modding (and possible official addons/DLCs) would be a way to set the max (and possibly min) XP for a scenario, and also the min XP for purchased units (core units purchased in a campaign). Neiter of these is essential, but if easy to implement, they should be considered at some point.

Both settings are already available in the Editor, or am I missing anything?

[Rudankort]

fenglicao

About strategic bombers, I think it is too late now to change the roles of unit classes in such a dramatic way.

As for the experience issue, my thoughts are as follows:
- I think that compared to PG we have nerfed experience enough. No more nerfs of any kind are necessary.
- When the player selects elite replacements and pays full price, he can expect at least to get "proper" elite replacements, not capped in any way. This would also be a too fundamental change.
- We could allow to buy mixed replacements though (for advanced players only), this get requested from time to time.
- The situation when you have all units at 5-stars, full overstrength and with best equipment requires A LOT of prestige, and not many players can afford that. If you face this situation in your games, most likely this means that you need to select a higher difficulty.

PS. Showing experience gain in combat details might be a good idea. You can already see casualties by pressing C hotkey.

[MartyWard]

[- When the player selects elite replacements and pays full price, he can expect at least to get "proper" elite replacements, not capped in any way. This would also be a too fundamental change.

But they are still getting replacements, not battle hardened vets, so maybe elite replacement should drop a the overall units experiance some.

[El_Condoro]

I think nice-to-have's for modding (and possible official addons/DLCs) would be a way to set the max (and possibly min) XP for a scenario, and also the min XP for purchased units (core units purchased in a campaign). Neiter of these is essential, but if easy to implement, they should be considered at some point.

Both settings are already available in the Editor, or am I missing anything?

The minimum experience cannot be set for campaigns - all new units start with zero experience. This is a real problem for later years of the war. It would be nice to set new units to start with, say 100 XP. This is available for individual scenarios, as you've said.

[Rudankort]

The minimum experience cannot be set for campaigns - all new units start with zero experience. This is a real problem for later years of the war. It would be nice to set new units to start with, say 100 XP. This is available for individual scenarios, as you've said.

OK, I see. When I implemented this setting, it worked for campaigns too (some beta testers might remember this). But very soon we concluded that in campaign play it was not a good thing to have. On one hand, it kinda devaluates the experience you have on your war-hardened veterans. On the other hand, new units see less development, for them the RPG aspect of the campaign is diminished. And since the first couple of stars are so fast to get (another reason why it works this way), it might actually be more fun to earn them on new units instead of getting them for free. You may need to be a bit more careful, so that the newbies don't get too many casualties, or get killed, but it is not that difficult to do, and takes very little time. The more powerful opponent you face, the more experience you extract from fighting him. So in late war, if your enemy has experienced units, your newbies should be VERY fast to catch up.

[El_Condoro]

It's the historical aspect, as well as the gameplay, that I'm considering. Replacements are not necessarily green conscripts from back home - as a commander, you use your prestige to persuade HQ to send replacements from other parts of the war. Those replacements are most likely going to have experience from fighting elsewhere - elite replacements indicate you have to use more of your prestige to convince HQ to send them. From that point of view, a minimum is good.

Gameplay in the later war years with completely green core units is possible the way you describe but they tend to be cannon fodder. Playing as the Russians and perhaps the Germans this may not be an historical problem but with the Allies it will!

Finally, whether it is a good idea or not is kind of irrelevant - IMO it should be an *option* for modders to have in their campaigns.

[Rudankort]

Finally, whether it is a good idea or not is kind of irrelevant - IMO it should be an *option* for modders to have in their campaigns.

OK, fair enough.

[Kerensky]

Yup, and that's why I think our current system is the most optimal one.

Yes new units always start at 0 experience, even in Mid and Late war.
But experience rates to reach 1 or 2 stars is achieved quickly, allowing new units to quickly catch up.

The alternative people seem to be asking for doesn't really change anything. It's just change for the sake of change.
Slowing down the experience rate of units will cause problems for Mid and Late war units starting at 0 experience, they won't be able to catch up... which means Mid and Late war units will need to pre-start with experience.

[rezaf]

Both settings are already available in the Editor, or am I missing anything?

Appearently so.

With XP of elite reinforcements, I meant - for a scenario - specify a max value reinforcements would come with. Just like fenglicao suggests, just defineable on scenario level (and thus strictly optional). All I know of is that you can modify the global XP value of green reinforcements - elite reinforcements always give max stars. Or am I missing anything?

About the scenario settings, unless you changed that in 1.04, the setting you make in the editor doesn't apply to newly purchased core units in a campaign - campaign units ALWAYS come with 0 stars, regardless when you purchase them. Or am I missing anything?
_____
rezaf

[Rudankort]

About the scenario settings, unless you changed that in 1.04, the setting you make in the editor doesn't apply to newly purchased core units in a campaign - campaign units ALWAYS come with 0 stars, regardless when you purchase them. Or am I missing anything?

No you are not, and I already explained the situation in my reply to El Condoro. Yes, for now, campaign mode and scenario mode work differently.

[rezaf]

The alternative people seem to be asking for doesn't really change anything. It's just change for the sake of change.
Slowing down the experience rate of units will cause problems for Mid and Late war units starting at 0 experience, they won't be able to catch up... which means Mid and Late war units will need to pre-start with experience.

I'm totally fine if the settings I suggested are VERY low priority or will not be implemented at all, but I disagree that they are totally pointless.
I have finished both DLCs with adjusted settings (much slower XP growth, more power from XP) twice now.
Even with ~20% starting growth (starting meaning for the first star), units can still catch up in a reasonable amount of time - over the course of a couple of missions - IF elite reinforced or rarely taking losses (ARTY and bombers usually grow much faster).
Also, even with more impact from XP, the units are far from unstoppable, at least with 2 stars.
So, running a campaign with those settings is a very valid option - I would NOT ask to change this for the vanilla game or DLCs, I just like to run those settings myself and probably will include them in a mod at some point.

Starting XP already CAN be set for a scenario, it just doesn't apply to core units. It's a useful setting for a number of scenarios, imo.
_____
rezaf