Slitherine

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?

Edmon wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:36 pm 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?

Edmon, I like a lot of your suggestions here because they make sense. When you think realistically, when the DAK captured British equipment, like Detroit-built GMC trucks, the German army didn't say, "Oh, okay, we'll withhold some of the Opel Blitzes we were going to send you because you captured some allied vehicles." It was a bonus. By forcing you to "buy" captured units, and more importantly, have them take up core slots, doesn't seem to make sense. Perhaps, as you suggest, the captured equipment should fill a roll like SE units did in PC1. They just don't take any core slots, don't cost anything to use, but also do not give you any prestige.

One more thought, like in PG2, captured units that you use should still be able to accumulate experience, and later upgraded to German (or other) equipment because they still would be crewed by Germans. However, I do believe this is already possible in PC2 even though I haven't tried it.

It's controversial, because there are two camps of players.

Those who don't play the game like this, and find themselves starving with prestige. I've read many reports of playing going in battle without a full CORE, and no prestige at all. They're definitely focus on straight forward direct battling, they aren't making big captures, big encirclements and they probably picked more combat orientated traits. Panzer General instead of Trophies of War. Killer team instead of Deadly Grasp.

Nerfing rewards from capturing has no effect on these people, they're still going to get into trouble.
Nerfing rewards from capturing will affect anyone who is trying to learn better prestige management/economic skills though.
Nerfing rewards will de-incentive people from picking non combat orientated traits. The entire reason these traits are good because most people don't use them. Only very advanced players are fully taking advantage of encirclement and surrender mechanics. Other players just complain that the AI can retreat infinitely and for free.

So... I'm not entirely sure your proposed solutions will have the desired effect. It'll probably just result in advanced players not bothering to take those traits, and they'll just the rest of the players and pick directly combat focused traits. And we're just shifting what the power traits are and aren't.

I'd like to see if we can address this differently. A more mobile AI is one that is not sitting still when being encircled, for example.

Also, I have new ideas for combating prestige overload. I think prestige sinks should be more interesting. Rather than charge a flat free to explore ahistorical branches... perhaps taking a percent of player prestige to gain special rewards is more appropriate.

Pay 50% prestige to someone low on prestige isn't a big deal. Pay 50% to someone hoarding 30000 is a huge blow to their stockpile of money.

The real issue is the disconnect between the player and AI armies.

They player has to pay for every unit, they're on a budget. The AI has no such restriction, it is entirely up to the scenario designer to built an appropriate enemy force that is challenging, but not impossibly strong, and present that to fight against the player.

That system is amazing for building quality content, as we saw in the past with the Grand Campaign.

But this new system turns that on its head. Now the stronger your enemy is... can be flipped and directly feed the player with a wealth of captured equipment and bonus prestige. This was made hilarious clear to me when I finally got the hero combo of Overwhelming attack + Envelopment. Now every time I see an expensive/powerful enemy unit, I instantly delete it and capture it wholesale, massively enriching myself in the process.

Ultimately, I don't think this is a serious problem. Let players play the way they want to. If elite players feel this is a crutch on highest difficulty, I don't think that justifies an entire re-writing of the rules. Several AAR threads already have self-imposed restrictions placed on them because they feel it's too powerful. Which is the proper response to this sort of thing, just like how people who don't like heros and broken hero combos can opt out by disabling heroes in their campaign.

I'm definitely biased on this topic though. I really don't care about prestige running out of control. I recognize prestige is mostly meaningless in this game. 5000 spare prestige is the same as 5 billion spare prestige. It's irrelevant, because you cannot convert prestige into more power in a scenario because of slot limitations. Prestige only matters for people struggling so badly they can't even fill their slot limit. And any change that disadvantages those players, I cannot endorse.

People who have 'figured out' the prestige system and min max it into perfection. Good for you. It doesn't make well designed content easier. Because all content is designed with the idea that a player entering a campaign scenario has a healthy CORE that is well populated with units, and not ripped to shreds. Sure having infinite prestige does mean you get to use non-stop elite replacements, which is a slight combat advantage... but I see that as a good trade off for a player who is economically smart about their Commander picks over someone who prefers pure combat based commander traits.

Hmmm...very good counterpoints, Kerensky.

On my current playthough, I do have the "Power4" but find it doesn't really match my style of play, or I haven't learned to adjust it enough from the way I am used to playing PC1/PG2/PG1.

Right now, I suspect I have a relatively small but overpowered core compared to most players. I tend to wish to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible and move on. I tried to maximize capture on the Kiev map and yes did capture a lot of prestige/units. However, I found myself out of turns before securing all of the victory objectives. So, in short, it doesn't work for me and the way my core is built. Did fine when I restarted the scenario however and gave up intentionally trying to capture a lot of equipment.

So, in short, I find a lot of truth to what you wrote.

Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:50 pm Those who don't play the game like this, and find themselves starving with prestige. I've read many reports of playing going in battle without a full CORE, and no prestige at all. They're definitely focus on straight forward direct battling, they aren't making big captures, big encirclements and they probably picked more combat orientated traits. Panzer General instead of Trophies of War. Killer team instead of Deadly Grasp.

Nerfing rewards from capturing has no effect on these people, they're still going to get into trouble.
Nerfing rewards from capturing will affect anyone who is trying to learn better prestige management/economic skills though.
Nerfing rewards will de-incentive people from picking non combat orientated traits. The entire reason these traits are good because most people don't use them. Only very advanced players are fully taking advantage of encirclement and surrender mechanics. Other players just complain that the AI can retreat infinitely and for free.

I'm sorry I don't agree this is so Black and White.

People who are playing the game like it's an actual war game, like it was PC1. I.E. that the goal is to fight and kill the enemy, can still win generalissimus without capturing anything through better/clever use of their units, careful management of their turns, etc. I have nearly finished the game myself with hardly any captures because I didn't take any of the capture skills and didn't realise the sheer power of capture until I was basically done winning the game. They can play the game like it's PC1 and do just fine. They can learn better "prestige management and economic skills" just fine, like you did in PC1. Knowing which cities to capture, which to avoid, what units to kill and which to avoid, etc. The game works as an excellent sequal to PC1 if you play this way.

People who are playing the game with the POWER4 are not even playing a wargame anymore. Their goal is to surround the enemy and not fight them at *all*. Ideally, their gameplan involves zero combats, until all the enemy is "Effectively" dead from grasp/surrounded surpression. It's just a totally different, perverse version of the game where you save money because you never fight anyone, you save more money because you generally don't take enemy retaliation and then you make money on top of that when you finally convert all the defenceless enemy units into cash. You don't even need to do anything big or clever, you can literally run at the enemy and "pin" them, instantly resulting in a massive 4 suppression on the start of their turn. So even in cases where a surround isn't possible, it's still possible to use it on any unit who doesn't have at least 2 more units protecting it's sides from a 2 unit pin. A supply tile is literally your only defense.

It reminds me of Magic The Gathering. The goal of the game was to summon creatures and combat them, to take the other guys HP down to zero. But certain extremely powerful card combinations allowed you to play a totally different game, one where you mill (remove) the other persons deck, thus causing them a loss from the "out of cards" loss condition. When ways to do this really effectively became commonly known, the whole game about "creatures and combat" just goes totally out the window. To a point where having 20 HP was something you didn't even think about, you worried about how your deck might be milled and ways to prevent it.

Panzer Corps 2 feels like, over time, it might fall into this trap... unless something really changes.

What I did like about Edmon's original post was that it most reflected realism. The German army (or any other for that matter) were not the military version of "Super Recyclers." The didn't collect captured enemy tanks because it was a source of scrap metal to build their own stuff from. It was valuable for analysis in some cases, or to be used by themselves. So, collecting prestige for captured equipment doesn't really make a lot of sense historically. Hence, I agree with Edmon.

However, gameplay is another matter, and this is a game after all and it's above all else supposed to be fun. Therein lies the value of Kerensky's reasoning.

Everyone can always apply their own "rules" to what they do. Towards that end, I played PC1 with my own self-imposed rules to reflect history, like diverse composition or one that reflected the actual army or corps' units (like the DAK) which meant I *had* to have recon, AT, and so forth.

Next time I play, I am not going to choose "Deadly Grasp" and "splitter" because I don't use it enough. I do like ZOC and Blitzkrieg, but for other reasons.

Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:50 pm very advanced players

I would dispute this characterization , except for the , " player " part.

In my opinion , Edmond's Power 4 and encirclement and capture techniques are no less a " cheat " than , " setany prestige x "

How so ?

In my opinion , for the Germans , long term , in the historical reality , encirclement and capture are devastating for the Poles , the French , and for the Germans themselves , because they are losing territory they cannot afford to lose , and are losing resources they cannot replace.

But the Russians , the Americans , and even the British to a somewhat more limited extent , CAN afford to trade territory for time , and CAN afford to make good almost any losses .

According to that view of things , then , Edmond's Power 4 and encirclement and capture techniques would have ...err .... cost the Germans to lose the war anyway.

" Better " tactics wouldn't work any better for our hypothetical German than they did for Hannibal , Nathan Bedford Forrest , or the not hypothetical Manstein or Guderian.

According to that view , it is only a winning strategy WITHIN THE PECULIAR REALITY OF THE GAME.

Frankly , I use the , " setany prestige X " "cheat " , and make no apologies for it .

Why ?

" setany prestige X " is the game mechanic I use to reflect my opinion that the only likely way for the Germans to win the war is to go to a Total War economic footing in 1940.

Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:50 pm Let players play the way they want to.

That is pretty much my default position on things.

Not least because , in my view , while fundamental game design may have been absolutely critical in the days of Panzer General , and before that , Avalon Hill ,

the future of games --- at least a positive future --- is for games to serve as a basic framework or foundation for the mods that players --- those who bother with or care about the game anyway to begin with --- develop to graft onto the game.

EVERY game I have played more than one month in the past ten years is a game that is HEAVILY MODDED. And I suspect that is at least not unusual now , and is probably the norm . ( ? )

Which is to say that , going forward , the most successful games are likely to be those games that the players can play the way they want to.

The meat and potatoes of games now are fan- created mods , fan - created youtube how - to's like Edmond's , and things like that.

Not designer tweaks. --- Except for DLC . Lots of people complain about DLC , but I suspect the sales figures tell a different story ?

( There again , I have noticed that my favorite games , in addition to being mod - heavy , are also DLC rich. )

Edmon wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:24 pm

Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:50 pm Those who don't play the game like this, and find themselves starving with prestige. I've read many reports of playing going in battle without a full CORE, and no prestige at all. They're definitely focus on straight forward direct battling, they aren't making big captures, big encirclements and they probably picked more combat orientated traits. Panzer General instead of Trophies of War. Killer team instead of Deadly Grasp.

Nerfing rewards from capturing has no effect on these people, they're still going to get into trouble.
Nerfing rewards from capturing will affect anyone who is trying to learn better prestige management/economic skills though.
Nerfing rewards will de-incentive people from picking non combat orientated traits. The entire reason these traits are good because most people don't use them. Only very advanced players are fully taking advantage of encirclement and surrender mechanics. Other players just complain that the AI can retreat infinitely and for free.

I'm sorry I don't agree this is so Black and White.

People who are playing the game like it's an actual war game, like it was PC1. I.E. that the goal is to fight and kill the enemy, can still win generalissimus without capturing anything through better/clever use of their units, careful management of their turns, etc. I have nearly finished the game myself with hardly any captures because I didn't take any of the capture skills and didn't realise the sheer power of capture until I was basically done winning the game. They can play the game like it's PC1 and do just fine. They can learn better "prestige management and economic skills" just fine, like you did in PC1. Knowing which cities to capture, which to avoid, what units to kill and which to avoid, etc. The game works as an excellent sequal to PC1 if you play this way.

People who are playing the game with the POWER4 are not even playing a wargame anymore. Their goal is to surround the enemy and not fight them at *all*. Ideally, their gameplan involves zero combats, until all the enemy is "Effectively" dead from grasp/surrounded surpression. It's just a totally different, perverse version of the game where you save money because you never fight anyone, you save more money because you generally don't take enemy retaliation and then you make money on top of that when you finally convert all the defenceless enemy units into cash. You don't even need to do anything big or clever, you can literally run at the enemy and "pin" them, instantly resulting in a massive 4 suppression on the start of their turn. So even in cases where a surround isn't possible, it's still possible to use it on any unit who doesn't have at least 2 more units protecting it's sides from a 2 unit pin. A supply tile is literally your only defense.

It reminds me of Magic The Gathering. The goal of the game was to summon creatures and combat them, to take the other guys HP down to zero. But certain extremely powerful card combinations allowed you to play a totally different game, one where you mill (remove) the other persons deck, thus causing them a loss from the "out of cards" loss condition. When ways to do this really effectively became commonly known, the whole game about "creatures and combat" just goes totally out the window. To a point where having 20 HP was something you didn't even think about, you worried about how your deck might be milled and ways to prevent it.

Panzer Corps 2 feels like, over time, it might fall into this trap... unless something really changes.

I think it's important to point out this is a single player game (since this is about the campaign) so does it really matter if someone is playing it differently than other players? As someone who enjoys both slugging it out with the AI while also occasionally doing big encirclements I honestly really enjoy having so many different ways to plays the game and approach different scenarios. If trying to play optimally then people will find some way to break the game and unless your willing to completely nerf that option I struggle to see a reason to change it. Personally to me this change would just weaken a strategy for no reason outside of an opinion that it isn't meant to be a part of the game (and I would strongly argue it is because look at scenarios like Kiev where you can make a massive encirclement). If you don't want to play with encirclements or something like trophies of war than you can do that but why ruin the fun for others?

Wait, I don't get it. Maybe you're talking about an earlier game version?
For me, if I want to use captured equipment, I need to pay the core slots, the prestige just the same as for German ACME equipment. By the time I capture enough, I already have equal or better available.
So yeah, captured EQ is no more than a bunch of war trophies ATM.
I would probably try making them free to use from prestige perspective, and if I delete them, I should get the prestige cost (exchange them with other commanders).

Blade0 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 4:06 am Wait, I don't get it. Maybe you're talking about an earlier game version?
For me, if I want to use captured equipment, I need to pay the core slots, the prestige just the same as for German ACME equipment. By the time I capture enough, I already have equal or better available.
So yeah, captured EQ is no more than a bunch of war trophies ATM.
I would probably try making them free to use from prestige perspective, and if I delete them, I should get the prestige cost (exchange them with other commanders).

They are "free" to use.

You get awarded their prestige cost when you capture them. If you want to use them you then have to spend that awarded prestige to get them.

As a whole - I agree with Kerensky for the most part. There is nothing wrong with having options available to suit everyone. I will very likely never adopt the "power4" game play because I just don't like it. As someone else mentioned it stops being a wargame to a certain extent when playing like this and I'm here to play a wargame.

Some players like to find game mechanics they can exploit and I say all power to them, if thats what they enjoy why would I want to see it changed. It doesn't effect me. As its already been pointed out you can win the war without it so its not essential. (I avoid calling them elite or advanced players. There is nothing elite or advanced on this style of play, its just different to how others like to play)

I did many small level encirclement's (and one very big one, thanks Kiev) but didn't go whole hog with the capture mechanic because its not how I like to play.

I see no real reason to balance a game that comes with so many options.
No one needs to take Deadly Grasp, Heroes or Gustav. Play Defenders of the Reich for none of it.

And I have to say, after my like 30 years of TBS Games these encirclement mechanics were such a breath of fresh air.
Its the first title I play where these historic big encirclements actually can be exercised.
And I also got enjoyment from accumulating sh*tloads of prestige without any real need for it.

As Kerensky pointed out, there are already players imposing "house rules" on themselves in the AAR section.
I think this comes from a wish to compare their skill.
For them maybe an option could be added "captured units give no prestige". But that's about all I would do.

I get enjoyment both from playing it as a straight out war game and messing around with heroes and encirclement. It depends on my day and what I want to play. Instead of playing different games now I can do both in one game. A game that gives so many options and still can manage to be fun in different ways each time is exactly why I like this game. The fact that an exploit can be used in a single player game is not a reason to remove peoples options and enjoyment. And if you are getting encircled in multiplayer then kudos to the person who pulled it off.

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...)

o_t_d_x wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 8:01 am 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)

I don't really, really, REALLY don't understand the call to nerf capture. Traits and capture mechanic works only hand in hand for the single player experience, why should it be taken away? Especially this is after the first wave of players really enjoyed their fun. Nerfing it now makes it PzC2 a harder game than originally created.

Some of the comparison against other games have been brought up, and I will make the argument in combination of those, not just PzC2 in a vacuum.

1. "Vintage Fairness"
I would argue against ANY nerf of capture, or the "power 4" or the capture mechanic, is really robbing later player of the same experience. This is no different than Magic: The Gathering Reserved list and alpha/beta cards. Since the single player experience is yours alone, does it matter if everyone can have the power 4? You being tempted to play with same mechanics every game should not be a call to nerf the game for all. My game is not interfering with yours. We can both play PzC2, but I am not required to have the same game appreciation as you. I learned about the power 4 from Edmon(thanks), but I still think call for encirclement nerf is wrongheaded. Blanketing out a gaming experience after it has been released is rarely the right choice. What, I am just suppose to read about the "good old days"? I should have the full experience play harsh, old school Magic if that is the format I choose. Blanket nerf no, format choice, yes.

2. AI limits.
Secondly, the AI limitations. Game AI's exist, and their logic can be figured out step by step. Given a large enough player base the AI can be completely "solved". Civ5 and Civ6, as other hex games, have a huge player base the the accumulated wisdom means the AI decisions vs. visible AI behaviors are almost predictive. Having figured out AI behavior doesn't mean I should not standoff against the early rush with a couple of archers beyond a river, or intentionally forward settle a point with mountain blocking an enemy facing side. Knowing means I get to beat the AI like gagged gimp with a rubber hose. Knowing means If I sense victory slipping away I can still hope to get Ruhr Valley and Venetian Arsenal and play the late game like a multi-front Sealion landings to sneak in a "dirty win"( I even frequently plan out my forces like Sealion 44). I would argue that Civ wins are almost always "dirtier" than what you get in PzC2 - your record doesn't carry over. Get a win before T500 ends is all that matters. I don't think there was a call to weaken river defense bonus in Civ. And if the Civ AI is too burdened with empire management to count hexes and deter submarines while battleships are waiting to roll in, that doesn't mean all the players should have their navies nerfed. Before you exploit AI stupidity, you have probably already exploited AI weakness - a Storch + AA trap for example. Strategy games that uses "on the board" surprises/triggers often has that anti-recon bias. Going back to Homeworld 1 that anti recon bias can trigger all sort of behavior out of sequence. You as a gamer are already using these prioritization gaps as an anti-AI shorthand, whether encirclement continue to work this way or not.

3. Game Mechanics & "gaminess"
Flanking and encircling enemies have a value all their own, even if not for the Encirclement mechanic. That is something gamers will do anyway, the mechanic just adds extra fun to it. And this also builds into that "increments of fun" game design that includes everything from FPS to open world games. Yeah, the action-feedback loop here is no different than someone energy drink guzzling bro playing COD. But you all know this to be true. Game mechanics is what sets one game apart from another. Feels good to open a pack of MtG cards and see a chase card. Feels good to open a campaign with 3 great Killer Team Heros - and you know you want to use that Double Move/Envelopment team on the Kiev pocket later even though you are just starting Poland South. RNG and collectible "slots/card" always has this aspect, and adding it to the encirclement mechanic and finding that combo is unique in hex games of this particular setting. I even would add "Back Luck" as a plus, since that means T-34s and Kv2 won't be excessively damaged. Once again, my enjoyment of the game doesn't interfere with yours. (Heck, this starter pack of heroes is trash, restart the game and see if I get that mythic 0-slot!)

4. Breaking immersion
I have played nearly the entire SSI General series(not people's general) and FGII and PzC I/II, they are games. You can choose to build your list close to historical compositions, and that choice was never taken away from you. I can choose to build a different list with expectation of running US West with a 4000p reserve and after forcing my experienced units to take 100% casualty because I have no further use for them. In war games / or 4x games, people's expectation of casualty is already different from player to player. You want to imagine your troops fought hard to reach the gates of Moscow, I just want my pionier to make them surrender. Deleting that enemy from the map is all I care about. What soviet casualties and captures mean in the historical context matters to me not. Some people play Civ in a way they tell themselves a story. I enjoy the fact I can fool/cajole an AI faction with "near war" activities that no real nation can get away with, no roleplays, unless you consider blundering historical artifacts roleplay. Immersion is subjective, you don't have to play like its a combination of collectible card game and go, if you don't want to. After your are told "Remember, no Russian", it is your choice to pull in the trigger in the airport or not. Any meaning you read into it is just extra role play. No difference here.

Almost any game has an audience big enough to allow for multiple camps within the game space. And this means there will always be mechanics/game systems driven players and historical context player and Panzer General legacy players. Nerfing doesn't allow all of these player to exist on equal footing, even after we all paid the same price for the game.

I am ootl here. What exactly is Power4? The trait that doubles the punishment for encirclement?

pewp3w wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 2:50 pm I am ootl here. What exactly is Power4? The trait that doubles the punishment for encirclement?

It's what Edmon called the 4 traits that make encirclements deadly.

Deadly grasp.
Master of blitzkrieg.
Flexible command and
Perimeter control? (The one the allows you to negate enemy zoc)

Horseman wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 2:58 pm

pewp3w wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 2:50 pm I am ootl here. What exactly is Power4? The trait that doubles the punishment for encirclement?

It's what Edmon called the 4 traits that make encirclements deadly.

Deadly grasp.
Master of blitzkrieg.
Flexible command and
Perimeter control? (The one the allows you to negate enemy zoc)

I think the last one is trophies of war, that doubles the prestige rewards for captures. The problem with it is that it gives you very high amounts of prestige compared to what you get for anything else in the game. One capture often equals several turns of prestige, especially with trophies of war and special heroes.

I also feel there is a problem here, it feels unbalanced to be able to gain near infinite amounts of prestige with these traits. And then the equipment you capture is near useless as it is generally worse than your own equipment, comes a scenario later and has reinforcement restrictions. I would say that the free prestige should be reduced a bit overall and the equipment should be made a bit more useful.

Making the captured units not cost any core slots would be interesting, but might also unbalance the game by ending up with many more units than intended. Perhaps a middle ground would be to do the following:

1. Reduce the prestige and core slot cost of captured equipment by 50%.
2. Reduce the bonus prestige of captures by 50%

That way the free prestige doesn't get so out of hand and there is actually an incentive of using the captured equipment.