Re: Panzer Corps 2 - Dev Diary #4
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pm
It sure can be a strategy against a lower tech opponent, but was this a good strategy in WW2??
It sure can be a strategy against a lower tech opponent, but was this a good strategy in WW2??
Rarely. In WW2 paratroopers were only effective in a handful of operations. The Germans produced very few heavy tanks and heavy AT. Most of the deaths were due to artillery, starvation, and disease. Success was mostly about the intelligence and logistics of getting a functional army to the right place at the right time. The "must be as historical as possible" crowd are always running up against the reality that a lot of WW2 doesn't actually make for a fun game.
This is huge. I like it a lot and will increase the use and effectiveness of AT's, I am hoping there is some advantage with using those towed AT's as they were very difficult to use in Panzer Corps, but this will increase their effectiveness a ton.AlbertoC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:37 am
Support fire
Support fire is another signature mechanic from Panzer Corps. It is a prime example of interaction between units, and it allowed the defender to create “clusters of defence”, which were not so easy to “crack” by the attacker. All this remains true in Panzer Corps 2 too. However, we felt that in the prequel artillery was not very useful in support fire role against tanks, while the class of AT guns was underused. So, in the sequel artillery will provide support fire against soft targets, while AT units will provide support fire against hard targets.
This is it for today. Thanks for reading, and if you have any questions about how core game mechanics will work in Panzer Corps 2, post them in the comments. See you in the next dev diary!
The proposed change won't make towed AT viable for you to use, it will make it viable against you. The AI tanks will never attack you if you have AT around. They already only really attack on leap days. They're chicken the rest of the time and they certainly don't attack AT of any kind very often. So if the AI won't attack, you're left with the usual problem of going around hunting them down which is something towed AT sucks at. Maybe they will be good on defensive scenarios, but it is usually the AI who is on defense. Hence why I say this mechanic will mostly be used against you.goose_2 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:20 pmThis is huge. I like it a lot and will increase the use and effectiveness of AT's, I am hoping there is some advantage with using those towed AT's as they were very difficult to use in Panzer Corps, but this will increase their effectiveness a ton.AlbertoC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:37 am
Support fire
Support fire is another signature mechanic from Panzer Corps. It is a prime example of interaction between units, and it allowed the defender to create “clusters of defence”, which were not so easy to “crack” by the attacker. All this remains true in Panzer Corps 2 too. However, we felt that in the prequel artillery was not very useful in support fire role against tanks, while the class of AT guns was underused. So, in the sequel artillery will provide support fire against soft targets, while AT units will provide support fire against hard targets.
This is it for today. Thanks for reading, and if you have any questions about how core game mechanics will work in Panzer Corps 2, post them in the comments. See you in the next dev diary!
I am looking forward to possibly playtesting these new features and making usre they do not break the balance of the game.
Keep working no rush on this as we want something great not just good or God forbid ok, or even perish the thought Bad
Yea that's why I don't like the design behind ATG weapons. They are simply too powerful, and the AI is too smart to dive head first into them and commit seppuku. That's quite a heady statement, but it rings true. A towed ATG has fantastic init, with an init bonus when being attacked, no hard type vulnerability, and can carry some of the high AT attack values in the game. It's limited by it's mobility, which is the worst of any unit by far, and it's inability to act aggressively. On the other hand, you have an AI smart enough not to impale its Shermans on your 88mm roadblock, but it's also not smart enough to know what to do about it. This often ends up in a weird stalemate where a well positioned ATG unit is face to face with one or more powerful tanks, but no one is shooting at each other they just sit and stare.proline wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:34 pm The proposed change won't make towed AT viable for you to use, it will make it viable against you. The AI tanks will never attack you if you have AT around. They already only really attack on leap days. They're chicken the rest of the time and they certainly don't attack AT of any kind very often. So if the AI won't attack, you're left with the usual problem of going around hunting them down which is something towed AT sucks at. Maybe they will be good on defensive scenarios, but it is usually the AI who is on defense. Hence why I say this mechanic will mostly be used against you.
Scouting was maybe not enough usefull in PCorps (who want a feeble unit in a scenarized game? just relaunch the scenario), but it should be solved in PC2 using the new slots.
My suggestion is, only recon units can discover enemy units' exact stats in some terrains, for example city, forest, mountain. Normal units can only spot unit class, not equipments.ErissN6 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:33 amScouting was maybe not enough usefull in PCorps (who want a feeble unit in a scenarized game? just relaunch the scenario), but it should be solved in PC2 using the new slots.
I hope too the scenarios in PC2 will be randomized: enemy can be placed at different areas, so we have to actually scout the map.
The game won't work with complicated scouting rules that are above the AI's understanding. It will just make the AI dumber. Think of how easy it is to ambush the AI now and then double that.naturesheva wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:19 pmMy suggestion is, only recon units can discover enemy units' exact stats in some terrains, for example city, forest, mountain. Normal units can only spot unit class, not equipments.ErissN6 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:33 amScouting was maybe not enough usefull in PCorps (who want a feeble unit in a scenarized game? just relaunch the scenario), but it should be solved in PC2 using the new slots.
I hope too the scenarios in PC2 will be randomized: enemy can be placed at different areas, so we have to actually scout the map.
If you go back and read the Dev Diary, you will see that the onus is on scenario designers to design their scenarios around this option. That means effort will be taken away from putting in cool things towards testing it on "no limit" mode. Designers only have so much time in their day. That means a compromise on quality even if you never turn the OPTION on. So it affects everyone.
I certainly understand where you are coming from. However, I think that the changines we are making are not THAT bad for the AI. Support fire in particular is not a new concept, it existed for artillery, AA and fighters already, so adding another type will not create a completely new challenge.13obo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:16 am I feel I will but one thing that I am cautious about when adding more complicated game mechanics is... Will the AI handle it properly? More choice is more fun but I am afraid something Civilisation 6-alike may happen here with all the new mechanics. Civ 6 has many new brilliant gameplay mechanics over civ5, but the AI is so bad that even after a year and more of patching, it still fails miserably and is the most cited reason for a negative review in Steam. I myself played a bit but gave up as the AI was downright dumb.
There are two main reasons. First, the size of guns in WW2 varied greatly from tiny to huge. If we show soldiers in scale to their guns, they will be vastly different sizes. If we show all soldiers same size, they will be completely out of scale relative to their guns. Both look ridiculous. Second, the whole point of adding these soldiers is to show them firing the gun. If they just stand there and not actually operate the thing, it will look odd indeed. But all these animations (load the gun, aim, fire) would take a lot of play time and slow down game pace. Which is something we want to avoid.
I feel that this particular option will not fragment the community more than any other existing option (weather, supply, fog of war, undo). The thing is, "no turn limit" does not change game tactics in any way, it does not change which units are better and which are worse, what's the best core composition etc. etc. It's almost like playing chess (real chess) without chess clock - no time pressure, but the game is the same. Most discussions on the forum will be relevant boith to people playing with a turn limit and without. The only exception I can think of are discussions of how to meet a tight deadline in a specific mission. But we will try to avoid tight deadlines in general, because they were never very popular with our players. I believe, Guderian was by far the least popular of bonus difficulties.
I expect that in Panzer Corps 2 infantry will become much more important, and transports give it more speed. In the next dev diary I'll explain why speed can actually be important and worth investing into.
Making them not taking up a slot can create very bad recon spamming issues, especially when coupled with the new split mechanic. However, under the new slot system they will of course take less slots than most other units.
I've already acknowldged this issue, and also promised the option to position the light source any way you like. What else can I do so that you don't worry so much about it?
The plan is to handle all issues related to "no turn limit" mode in the engine, without bothering scenario designers too much. However, as a content designer, you are free to "opt out" of this mode in any campaign, so this option is just not available (disabled) when playing this particular campaign.Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:45 pm I'm surprised by taking the step to potentially disable the turn limit, but I don't actually see it as a problem. The real question is how it will affect individual scenarios. If everyone can potentially last for infinite turns, does everyone need to be configured to potentially last for infinite turns? If it's easy to configure, sure why not. If it's a burdensome chore, you're going to have a problem.
I certainly understand why in Panzer Corps minor victories granted more prestige, but alas, this still felt extremely odd and counter-intuitive to many players. And of course, in a situation like this, your best line of action was to take your time and achieve the minor, and also grab more prestige and experience from the mission itself, unless the major resulted in a different campaign path.Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:45 pm Prestige is always tricky, and however odd it's handling may have been, there was a reason. Pulling the rug out could have bad repercussions if the things they were supporting start go unsupported. Testing will be important. Minors giving more than Majors is a form of wound licking. If in your campaign progress, you seem to lack the CORE strength maybe you need to achieve Major victories, perhaps your CORE is understrengthed and needs help being rebuilt. Hence more money. But if you are earning the DVs, you're also earning other rewards beyond just currency, such as access to special units and special scenarios that you cannot just buy even with an infinite amount of money cheated in. The concepts are simple, special rewards you cannot normally purchase with just more money for the DVs, basic money assets to rebuild your CORE foundation if you only get as far as an MV. A multi-currency, if somewhat intangible, system was created from the uni-currency of prestige. Rewarding good performance and punishing poor performance sounds kind of snowbally to me... Strong get stronger and weak get weaker.
I'm not opposed at all to the idea of making some transports zero-cost, but I'm also pretty sure that the very best transports in existence (and which were very rare in real life) deserve a non-zero cost. It still will be less than the cost of the unit itself though.Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:45 pm Slots, we'll see. But I'll campaign pretty hard against transports taking up slots. It sounds good on paper, but it doesn't work in reality, as evidenced in other titles. You will end up with transports costing too many slots, and thus never being purchased ever, or transports costing so few slots that they are meaningless. Transport necessity is 100% a slave to scenario design, because who needs ground transports on a map where you are involved in an amphibious invasion and given free naval transport. Or who needs them if you are fighting in a dense and small map. You need them on big open maps with a timer rushing you forward but only limited enemy resistance, like PzC USA East Coast. As soon as your transports increase your core slot allotment of infantry by 50, 100, or even 200%, they're going to all be discarded. It's not a question of cheap transport vs expensive transports, it's a balance of having transports vs having an understrength army. I don't ask if my basic infantry deserves cheap horse or expensive half tracks, I just get more basic infantry all with no transports. Because 1 unit moves 3 hexes at fights at strength 10. 2 units can cover twice as many hexes and deliver twice as much combat strength. What does a transport do? Allow you to cover twice as many hexes, but actually degrades combat strength if you get caught 'in transport'. An interesting idea, a failure in practice unless these issues are somehow addressed.
As I said, there will be other incentives for faster offensive, which I discuss in the following dev diary. Since it will go out within the next few days, I won't spoil it now so stay tuned.
Well, experience and awards are two mechanics which are closely related to growth. Heroes too, but heroes are now transferrable between units, so they are less fitting in this role. Overstrength, on the other hand, can be a very interesting asset both in early campaigns and in MP.Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:00 pm Overstrength. Yea that was talked about, but my major concern was this mechanic was a growth system. Something you slowly earned as you played. It's become a staple of gaming, the need to grow as you play. This is why people hate multiplayer systems that don't dish out rewards, they don't see any reason to play something that isn't handing them rewards and upgrades and ranks and promotions and loot boxes. Nevermind playing is supposed to be reward in itself, that concept is long gone and died with this modern idea of playing games for a living.
Anyways point is, as long as other growth mechanics step in to replace the loss of overstrength as a growth mechanic, it should be fine.
Well, first of all, in such a triangle the AT is not covered at all from armoured attackers. For these units Jagdpanther covered with two arties is not harder than the same Jagdpanther all alone. How do you deal with a lone Jagdpanther in the open in Panzer Corps? Also, you are of course right that infantry will have hard time attacking this fortress, but Panzer Corps had the same problem with any arty cluster. If anything, infantry is going to be more powerful in the new game, so such an attack may not be as crazy as it would be in the prequel.Kerensky wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:00 pm I wonder if fire support is for towed ATG only. Because some self propelled AT units are pretty powerfully armed against soft targets, in fact they are designed specifically for that duty. In fact, thinking this through, there is a very tough triangle of units to assault now. 2 Arty and 1 ATG unit. The old method was just throw tanks at this defensive cluster. You absorb harmless arty fire and support and eat their ammo while eating their faces at the same time. And the poor, slow, towed, ATG could only watch in powerless horror. But with the ATG in support, especially something as powerful as a 17 pdr or Pak 88... these things will turn your arty devouring Panzer IV or Sherman into swiss cheese. Again the old answer was to use infantry. Crack that towed AT with infantry assault after supporting artillery swept away, problem solved. But now you need tanks to preclear the arty for the infantry but the tanks cannot act until you preclear the atg, and we're back to step one.
Scary as that sounds in defense, as soon as you self propel the arty and AT units, now you have a rolling fortress that cannot be directly assaulted... I am very curious to see how this actually functions in practice, because it seems to have a major theoretical problem. Just imagine 1 Jagdpanther escorted by 2 Wurfrahmen. The Jagdpanther will turn any Allied tank assault into dust with ease, but no infantry assault will ever survive assaulting the Jagdpanther with 2 supporting units, and even trying to infantry assault a single Wurfrahmen is going to be a costly disaster with the other providing support.
Ultimately, arty support and AT support are traits, so we are assigning them on a unit by unit basis. Some heavy arty might deserve "AT support" trait, but more testing is required to tell. Also, artillery will keep it's suppressing role, both vs. soft and hard targets.Sourdust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:07 am The fact that art can't provide support fire against tanks is an interesting design choice - somewhat ahistorical, as in the real war artillery was often very effective against armor - not necessarily direct kills, but lots of damage and disruption. (treads, forcing tanks to button up, superficial damage, cratering of landscape and disruption of supporting infantry).
This is not just the problem of snowballing, but also about knowing what lies ahead. With random campaigns, nobody can know for sure what scenarios lie ahead and what kind of core composition is required. To reduce the problem of running into dead ends, we are making core structure much more flexible. In Panzer Corps, the decision to upgrade was a very responsible one, because you spent full price of new equipment, and could not roll back without losing prestige. In Panzer Corps 2 upgrade cost is always the differecne between old and new, so you can always revert unwise decision and recover prestige spent in the process. This, plus the new slot system and steeper cost exponent which I've mentioned above, should make this kind of a problem much less prominent.Sourdust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:07 am Separately, I'd be very interested to see how devs are addressing the snowballing issue. In PC1 I think this was a real problem, especially since you didn't necessarily know whether you were ahead or behind the "power curve" until a dozen or more scenarios down the track, when you suddenly realised you have nowhere near enough prestige to make it through 1944, much less 1945.
Yes, a system with two separate resources is easier to balance. But, although unit slots are not "requisition points" per se, I expect that they will limit snowballing issues to a significant degree.Sourdust wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:07 am The more I think about this and compare with other games (UoC, for instance), the more I think a separation between "victory" points and "buy more stuff" points makes sense. Decisive victories might give more victory points, but less reinforcement points, than marginal victories. This creates a self-correcting mechanism, where successive decisive victories are harder and harder to achiever, but marginal victories give you more of a chance to catch up on the power curve. A pure prestige system with more rewards for greater victories is a vicious cycle, leading to the snowballing effect.
Not necessarily, because we are not saying turn duration is the same in both modes. With turn limit off, turns will not be getting a date assigned to them, so we can still assume the battle ended at about the same time as historically.
The problem is, "cool things" for you could mean nothing for other people, and vice versa. Any game tries to cater to different tastes of different people. Otherwise, even multiplayer crowd and people who create and play mods could very easily be dismissed as "minority". Obviously, both MP and mod subsystems are difficult and time-consuming to create, and ultimately this affects everyone.proline wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:43 pm If you go back and read the Dev Diary, you will see that the onus is on scenario designers to design their scenarios around this option. That means effort will be taken away from putting in cool things towards testing it on "no limit" mode. Designers only have so much time in their day. That means a compromise on quality even if you never turn the OPTION on. So it affects everyone.
Good to get a response to everything said here. I'll focus just on this piece here.Rudankort wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:54 pm Well, first of all, in such a triangle the AT is not covered at all from armoured attackers. For these units Jagdpanther covered with two arties is not harder than the same Jagdpanther all alone. How do you deal with a lone Jagdpanther in the open in Panzer Corps? Also, you are of course right that infantry will have hard time attacking this fortress, but Panzer Corps had the same problem with any arty cluster. If anything, infantry is going to be more powerful in the new game, so such an attack may not be as crazy as it would be in the prequel.
Otherwise, we are talking about a cluster of very powerful (and expensive) units here, so dealing with them must not necessarily be easy. However, running them out of ammo is always a viable tactics, espcially considering that a) ammo will be more limited in the new game and b) we now have split mechanics. Attacking from the air is another approach. Even if there is a strong air cover, strategic bombers can be a good choice, in order to suppress and run out of ammo the group. Arty suppression can also be very useful. Finally, if such groups prove very effective, we can very well expect that your group will soon run into a similar group from your opponent. Tactics of two triangles fighting each other might be quite funny, especially with the new "exchange units" action which will allow any triangle to regroup while preserving its integrity.