Recommended Hero Rework

[jchastain]

I love the concept of Heroes in the game. Allowing player to nurture and "grow" individual units adds a pseudo-RPG element to the game that gives it additional dimentionality. That said, the current implementation does not fully realize the full potential behind the concept. By simply "plopping" out a new hero after each battle, it feels contrived instead of "earned" in the same way that experience feels earned. And to make matters worse, because you always receive one and only one hero at the end of a battle and because some Heroes are clearly far superior than others, you feel a bit "cheated" when you get a "bad" one.

Therefore, I would propose two major changes:

1. Heroes should be created during battles.

In order to make them feel more like they earned their status by demonstrating true heroism in battle, Heroes should be awarded after a combat sequence. In each firefight, there should be a percentage chance that someone will distinguish themselves and rise to the level of becoming an in-game Hero.

2. Hero Tiers

Then Heroes should be divided into three tiers based on the perceived strength of their attributes. Tier 1 Heroes give relatively minor benefits, Tier 2 give greater benefits, and Tier 3 give the most significant benefits. And then, to add more historical flair, while I would leave random names for Tier 1 & 2 Heroes, I would recommend doing some research and finding real Heroes from the war and using their actual names and stories for all Tier 3 Heroes.

In order to maintain balance, I would adjust the chance of getting a hero in each battle according to how many the player current has. If they have more than one would expect, then their chance of getting another would be incrementally less. If they are behind where they should be, then their chance of getting a new one would increase. And rather than using the count of the heroes themselves, I would use the sum of the tiers of the heroes so that those with weaker heroes would end up with more of them in order to achieve greater balance.

In order to have roughly one hero per battle, you would need to have the percentage chance be roughly 1 / (number of units) (number of turns) (% of turns each units participates in combat). Let's then adjust that to use slots instead of number of units and assume roughly 3 slots per unit. And we'll assume for now that each unit is in a firefight in 1/3 of the turns. So, that's 1 / (3 * slots) (# of turns) (1/3) or (if we factor out the 3's we have 1 / (number of slots) (# of turns). Now let's factor in whether they are ahead or behind the number expected. For that, we would use Current Scenario # / Total # of Heroes, but then adjusting for tiers and assuming a tier 2 per scenario is about right, it would be (2 * Current Scenario #) / (Sum of Current Heroes Tiers). I would then square that to really help steer to the expected median. So the final formula might be something like: [ 1 / (# of player slots) (# of turns in current scenario) ] * [ ( 2 * Current Scenario # ) / (Sum of Current Hero Tiers ) ] ^ 2. And then finally, I would add an option for More Heroes, Standard Heroes, Fewer Heroes or No Heroes and multiply that % chance by 4 for those who want more or divide by 4 for those who want fewer. Obviously that is all just from the hip, but it could provide a place to start.

When someone gets a new Hero in a fight, pop up a message box. For Tier 3 Heroes, it would include the story of the real life hero just to add some additional flourish and historical information. The hero would be assigned to that unit (but could be moved after the battle). One question would be what to do if the unit already had the maximum number of Heroes. There would be several options. One would be that units with maximum numbers of heroes could no get another one and would not even run the check. That would incent people not to overload units with too many heroes. Another option would be to move the new hero to the "pool" where new heroes currently go and allow them to be assigned after the battle. Or allow a player to choose right then which to keep with the unit.

And finally, you would likely want to think about which heroes make sense with which units types and limit the possible selections based on who will be getting them. You can even limit based on whether they were awarded for offensive versus defensive fights just to add that additional bit of realism / color.

All-in-all, to me anyway, that would make a much more enjoyable Hero mechanic for the game. Thanks for your consideration.

[MickMannock]

Great suggestions! Agree with most of them.

However, my stance is that there shouldn't be a formula that ends up equivalent to 1 hero per scenario. That will feel just as mechanical as it currently is. I'd rather see it being determined by performance by the individual unit. So in some scenarios (especially early on) you get fewer heroes (ie not even once every scenario) but then getting more often as you progress during the war (if you manage to keep your veteran units alive that is).

My second suggestion is also that some heroes gets nerfed. For example, the hero that makes your unit cost zero core slots, I'd rather see the core slot of the unit the hero is assigned be reduced by 25 %, or something along those lines.

[jchastain]

Thanks for the comments.

I agree that you don't want it to feel overly mechanical, but that is why I think a % chance works. You can get lucky and get three in a battle. Or unlucky and get none in three battles straight. But I do think you want to put some guardrails up to skew the results towards a normalized distribution. You shouldn't be FORCED to receive only one per battle, but in setting the % chance you have to decide what the rough frequency to be and then to maintain balance I think you are well served to modulate the percentage chance based on whether someone gets significantly above or below the desired distribution. But to your other points, you could also factor in the experience of the unit so that veterans would be more likely to produce heroes or remove the # of turns in the scenario from being a factor, which would increase odds in longer scenarios and lessen them in short scenarios which would tend to shift distribution to more of the longer later battles.

And I don't think you can ever have the leaders be exactly the same power level, which is why I suggested tiers. It is essentially the same concept as slots except for leaders. If you get more powerful ones, then you won't get as many of them. That allows more variety which in turn enhances replayability. I like having the zero slots leader. It encourages you to buy monster units that you wouldn't ordinarily buy which adds variety. But that would definitely be an example of a top tier Hero.

[nexusno2000]

As of my latest playthrough I've decided not to use more than a single hero on each unit.

It's brilliant. Stuff like Zero Slots is still awesome, but it can't be combined with anything else to make silly stuff.

I recommend it.

[Kerensky]

As of my latest playthrough I've decided not to use more than a single hero on each unit.

It's brilliant. Stuff like Zero Slots is still awesome, but it can't be combined with anything else to make silly stuff.

I recommend it.

Truth be told, I think this is the best solution.

Heroes are there to be enjoyed by people who want to enjoy them. Anything that diminishes what currently exists can and will only be perceived as one thing: a nerf.
If you find them too game breaking, voluntarily opt out of them, or crank up those difficulty modifiers. Done.

Now that said....

It might be nice for some 'limited hero' rules. For example, customizing a campaign setting to allow only 1 hero per unit, instead of 3. That would dramatically help lessen the overpowered-ness of combining heroes.
It will also be important for the AI enemy forces to start wielding their own heroes, this will absolutely even the playing field.

[Moransky]

I hope that devs wouldn't touch heroes. It's good to have three of them at one unit and build interesting combos. And if someone doesn't like it, he can play without heroes.

[colberki]

I agree, Developers please don’t touch the heroes. I love it. One can opt not to use them. Let the rest of us like the current heroes enjoy them. It really brings a very nice RPG element to the hero units, especially with custom camouflage. Thanks for a great design.

[jchastain]

I hope that devs wouldn't touch heroes. It's good to have three of them at one unit and build interesting combos. And if someone doesn't like it, he can play without heroes.

I agree, Developers please don’t touch the heroes. I love it. One can opt not to use them. Let the rest of us like the current heroes enjoy them. It really brings a very nice RPG element to the hero units, especially with custom camouflage. Thanks for a great design.

Just for clarity, when you say don't touch heroes...

... would you be opposed to Heroes being generated during fights instead of awarded at the end of the battle just to further enhance the RPG feel of them?

... would you be opposed to the most powerful Heroes be real historical medal recipients and for the game to tell a bit about those real life people and what they did to earn their medals when you receive them?

Thanks.

[Kerensky]

Just for clarity, when you say don't touch heroes...

... would you be opposed to Heroes being generated during fights instead of awarded at the end of the battle just to further enhance the RPG feel of them?

... would you be opposed to the most powerful Heroes be real historical medal recipients and for the game to tell a bit about those real life people and what they did to earn their medals when you receive them?

Thanks.

Units already receive medals during missions.
You cannot assign heroes during missions.

That two strikes against the former.
As for the latter...

Dunno. Original Panzer Corps didn't get historical heroes until extremely late into development. The entire Grand Campaign was finished, and then they were scattered throughout it. So this all depends when those assets arrive in Panzer Corps 2, if ever.

[Femto]

+1 for continued empowerment of heroes.

They are completely optional feature of the game.
You can turn them off at your pleasure.

No one is forced to use heroes.
You can CHOOSE not to assign one you don't like.
Or even better, exterminate him with extreme prejudice.
It just takes a few clicks.

Devs, if you do decide to rework them, please leave the settings in rules.json, so that I can remedy it manually.

[Kerensky]

+1 for continued empowerment of heroes.

Godzilla transformation for all!

[nexusno2000]

As of my latest playthrough I've decided not to use more than a single hero on each unit.

It's brilliant. Stuff like Zero Slots is still awesome, but it can't be combined with anything else to make silly stuff.

I recommend it.

Truth be told, I think this is the best solution.

Heroes are there to be enjoyed by people who want to enjoy them. Anything that diminishes what currently exists can and will only be perceived as one thing: a nerf.
If you find them too game breaking, voluntarily opt out of them, or crank up those difficulty modifiers. Done.

Now that said....

It might be nice for some 'limited hero' rules. For example, customizing a campaign setting to allow only 1 hero per unit, instead of 3. That would dramatically help lessen the overpowered-ness of combining heroes.
It will also be important for the AI enemy forces to start wielding their own heroes, this will absolutely even the playing field.

I like the good heroes. Keep as is. But cap heroes at 1. It makes sense.

If you remember my hate fur lethal attack in the beta, it was precisely the combos that were troubling, not the trait in isolation.

[Femto]

Kerensky, thanks for the comic!
Maybe I should have said player empowerment through heroes.

I think allusion to Godzilla is quite apt in this debate.
Godzilla was created because some scientists decided to meddle with nature.
Likewise, if an overpowered, lethal and historically-incorrect combo is created, it is by player’s decision.
Decision many astute and self-disciplined players (NOT ME) have no difficulty in avoiding or unmaking later.
It just takes a few clicks.

Let great commanders avoid making Godzillas by themselves. They are smart, strong and proud enough to do it without guiding hand of the game system.
Let inept commanders (ME) continue to employ Godzillas. They may sourly need them.

To each their own. And current system is the best arrangement for that matter.

[MickMannock]

Sure you could argue not to use them (or limit to one per unit). But that argument is a bit so and so. It's like saying the Tiger and Panther tank are too powerful, so don't use them. Well, they are there so we do.

Or reversed, we could have heroes that makes you instakill anything or instafinish the scenario on one turn. Don't like it don't use it. Same goes with cheats. The stats for each individual hero is not in a god given state that can't be adjusted. Which goes for everything else in the game too.

[Femto]

Tigers and Panthers are official, integral part of the game.
There is no setting in option that says “Big Cats Off”.
On the other hand, heroes are optional like difficulty settings or like giving your enemy +5 strength.
Complaining about heroes’ power sounds like “This game’s easy setting is too easy!”.

We already have one-hit-kill and insta-win cheats. So?
Sorry I cannot understand this part. I am not good at English, you see.

What I would like to argue is that limiting heroes will curtail players’ freedom.
Take Envelopment hero.
Now I am free to use him while you are free not to use him.
If he is gone, obviously I am not free to do it while you are free… from a few clicks to unassign him?

Hmm, OK, maybe I was wrong in stating the current system is the best.
By all means, introduce sliders for hero assignment and hero strength that will leave both sides happy.

But no outright nerf please.

[Nalikill]

Some of the battles were probably balanced with heroes in mind. If I didn't have a godlike combination of heros in my Panzers, I don't know if getting bonus objectives in the Moscow scenario would have been viable. I'm fine with reworking heroes to put them in tiers, but we need to re-balance the battles accordingly.

One wild idea would be a purchasing menu like we have for units today, but instead of prestige you have to pay a cost in unit experience to get them - with the in-universe explanation that high command is "balancing" out the front and taking away your veterans, but lets you keep some "key personnel". Then you implement a tiered system where the 0 core slot guy would cost you boatloads and the "first aid" guy would be pretty cheap.

Alternatively, make the more powerful heroes cost 1 core slot.

[deducter]

Some of the battles were probably balanced with heroes in mind. If I didn't have a godlike combination of heros in my Panzers, I don't know if getting bonus objectives in the Moscow scenario would have been viable. I'm fine with reworking heroes to put them in tiers, but we need to re-balance the battles accordingly.

I wouldn't be surprised if the campaign was play tested internally without heroes/traits and with a weak, "historical" core. This is how PzC 1 grand campaigns were balanced from what I recall.

[Kerensky]

I wouldn't be surprised if the campaign was play tested internally without heroes/traits and with a weak, "historical" core. This is how PzC 1 grand campaigns were balanced from what I recall.

Actually not true. The way I balanced my Grand Campaign was to play it on Manstein. Because I knew it so intimately, I had to play it on outrageously pumped up difficulty. And if I could handle it, I considered it acceptable for players with no insider knowledge to be able to handle it on default difficulty levels.

If we also recall, people thought it was an insanely huge leap in difficulty over the base game. I still remember my most favorite one liner of feedback for DLC 1939.
"If invading Poland was actually this hard, Hitler would have been defeated in 1939."

Or something to that effect.

[jchastain]

One wild idea would be a purchasing menu like we have for units today, but instead of prestige you have to pay a cost in unit experience to get them - with the in-universe explanation that high command is "balancing" out the front and taking away your veterans, but lets you keep some "key personnel". Then you implement a tiered system where the 0 core slot guy would cost you boatloads and the "first aid" guy would be pretty cheap.

If Heroes continue to be generated after battles instead of during them, then I think this idea would be ideal to avoid people feeling "cheated". Everyone can choose what they want.

As to number of heroes per unit, tiering could solve that so that a unit can only have one top tier hero or multiple lesser heroes. Just assign Hero Slot Values to each hero and cap Hero Slots on each unit. Just make a game option to "limit heroes per unit" to activate this system and default it to on. Those turning it off could continue to pile multiple top tier heroes onto a single unit since it is obvious that several posters feel pretty passionate that they enjoy doing so.

[MickMannock]

What I would like to argue is that limiting heroes will curtail players’ freedom.

I just don't understand the argument. You never have any freedom, cause you are not making the game. There is no natural state of a game that has existed in eternity. Things have changed multiple time during development and after version 1.0 there will be more development, resulting in patches and DLC. So it is resonable to question certain parts of the game. That doesn't necessarily mean we will be listened to, but that's the way it is.

So why do I question this? Because I feel the game follows a certain formula. Sure, it's beer and pretzel strategy but the game tries to stick to a fairly grounded World War 2 strategy game experience. I like the concept of heroes in the game, and it worked very well in PC1. They enhanced your units without making them non stop killing machines. I just feel they went too far balance wise in PC2 and I don't see a reason for it. It's over the top a makes the game more cartoony than it needs to be.