Combat results

[goodwoodrw]

I know there is several comments about this subject in other threads, but I'm starting enjoy the game less and less the more I play. In my opinion there appears to be some imbalances in the combat results. Allowing for the randomization of the dice roll and others factors built into the results, I'm becoming frustrated with the high number of times tanks are rolled over by infantry in open terrain. So often you will have a PZIV parked in open terrain and after 2 infantry attacks the armd unit is rendered useless. I have become scared to park an armd unit in town or city hex, as it regularly gets creamed by infantry attacks. In the Polish Campaign Cav Units beat up tank way too often. In my opinion the combat figures need a serious tweak. I have restarted several scenarios over through utter frustrations from battle results. Dear Developers is there a serious revision of the battle results in the air I hope so?

[MWadwell]

Comments are removed as irrelevant:

You are playing a pirated version, most probably even an early Beta version, that makes for me at least all your comments totally unreliable, as you play an illegal and outdated pirated version.
The 22nd of November we release the first official demo, download and try that.

Feedback needs to be based on the latest version as it makes any discussion irrelevant and outdated right from the start. The game has undergone continuous support, patching and so many balance changes. We cannot spend time and support on pirated, outdated, illegal copies.

[goodwoodrw]

Forget it

[Stvitus2002]

high number of times tanks are rolled over by infantry in open terrain

Have to agree:
I can understand how armor would be vulnerable in urban or forest terrain,
but soft targets should be more vulnerable out in the open to armor and i
am just not seeing that happen. Granted, PZ-1's & 2's are not well protected,
but in open terrain they should be able to mow down attacking infantry or
cavalry easily. And yes, i am patched up current, with both GC's.


WO 0/0

[Lord Zimoa]

For those who want more info about the battle combat prediction, use Ctrl+right-click (if you of course use the default 2-button click system!), to open up the more detailed combat prediction menu when in battle and prior to your planned attack.

[goodwoodrw]

G'day Lord Zimoa, the working knowledge of combat results is "a nice to know," however its the end results that bother me. The battle results in the original campaign weren't too bad, however in the 2 DLCs seem to have consistently odd results. Another issue is suppression, (a units strength turned red I assume is a suppressed unit). If so you can suppress a unit with air and ground bombardment and then attack it with a ground unit the suppressed unit loses a couple strength points and retreats, then regains composure again (not suppressed), then you attack with another unit and more often that not it causes a fair amount of damaged to the attacking unit, Suppressed units should stay suppressed for the entire turn, Units attacked multiple times in a turn should have penalties added to it each following attack in a turn. If I'm wrong about the red figures indicating suppression, can you point me to the section of the manual explaining what it is.
Ron

[goodwoodrw]

On battle results hot keys, this screen shot shows right unit stats but wrong unit designations, should infantry and cavalry.

EDIT: Ah dopey me, thought Ctrl click and the "L" key did the same thing.

[lparkh]

I agree with the odd combat results point of the original poster. The variation in results is also too high IMHO for a game where one is trying to retain experienced units across time. It seems much variable then the original PG1 or PG2.

[misesfan]

Personally, I think the combat prediction is fine.  If it were more accurate, then perhaps the game might suffer from being too predictable if that makes sense.  I think the variation from the predicted results is wide, but not overly so. 

What may be more beneficial is more explanatory information in the pre-combat info screen (CTL-Click when selecting a unit).  More detail in this screen would be cool, or at least in a more understandable manner, because I tend to look at the screen but the info is basically irrelevant.  Probably me being a noob to the system, but it seems to be superfluous.

[Rudankort]

Guys, could you please be more specific? You say: "So often you will have a PZIV parked in open terrain and after 2 infantry attacks the armd unit is rendered useless." What modification exactly is that PzIV, and what infantry attacks it? I've just made a quick test on Barbarossa map, and Regular soviet infantry attacking a PzIVE in Countryside terrain (which is open) yields 5/0 prediction (in tank's favor), and actual combat follows this pattern. For example, I can easily get as much as 8/1 in tanks's favor. I don't see a problem with this situation at all - tank is clearly superior in open terrain.

Now, close terrain is a different story. Tanks are supposed to be vulnerable to infantry there, even late ones. This behavior is by design and won't be changed.

I'm not talking about prediction accuracy now, it is a separate topic, not directly related to unit balance, and it was discussed a lot already. See for example this recent poll: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29881 So for now, it is not clear to me at all that a change is required in prediction department.

But we will absolutely tweak unit balance in case there are problems with it - it is an ongoing task, and in every patch we make some more improvements in this area. So far I don't see any specific problems reported in this topic, only generic impressions which are not confirmed by tests. If you could give us more information on the issues you are facing, we'll carefully examine them.

As for suppression, yes, it is lost after a single assault, and this won't change. If suppression lasted for the entire turn, it would become too overpowered. If you have several air/artillery units available for your attack, use them separately (bombardment-assault-bombardment-assault etc.) and you should get much better results.

[Rudankort]

ORIGINAL: lparkh

I agree with the odd combat results point of the original poster. The variation in results is also too high IMHO for a game where one is trying to retain experienced units across time. It seems much variable then the original PG1 or PG2.

In PG1 predictions were much worse than in PzC, believe me. As for PG2, it used a completely different (dumbed down) initiative model, and while it might result in more accurate predictions (I did not really check this, so not 100% sure), it also removed a whole layer of complexity from the game.

[PKH]

The problem I have with the prediction is that the variance is so high. If it was just +/- 1 or 2 it would be ok, but it feels like it's frequently +/- 3 or 4.
Also, tanks vs infantry in the open often gives incredible results, and not in a good way. Even a Pz II should demolish infantry in the open IMO, unless it runs into an ambush. Maybe infantry should be harder to spot.

[Stvitus2002]

could you please be more specific?

I guess i was talking more out of frustration in my previous post.
Having lost several somewhat expensive PZ38t's to the far ranging Polish
cavalry which seem to come out of nowhere. It's almost like i should
forget about purchasing panzers for the '39 GC and just concentrate on
infantry,artillery & air units, with a couple of 88's to handle any
armor threat.

Off topic:Have to say that the "capture the general" battle (40GC) seems
rather silly. Is this historical? Where did the French get all of that
armor from? It seems to spawn from thin air.



WO 0/0

[lparkh]

Having played through the 39 campaign now, I have a better feel for the design intent. There is indeed a lot more combat result variation than prior PGs.. leading almost inevitably to losing core units (at least for me.. I play "iron man" and accept losses). But the compensation for this is that initial experience is gained very quickly and experience plays less of a role in the combat results (it seems). Therefore, losses are an inevitable part of play but are compensated for quickly. So in this sense more random results is "ok" and encourages accepting losses, which is more "realistic" than the old PG.

The downside is I find I am less attached to units because there loss is less vital and their experienced status is less vital. I also find the "heroes" rather boring compared to the old "Leaders" in PG2 with their rather unique effects. Those "Leaders" also increased the sense of "value" of high experience units. More so then one stat add due to a hero.


p.s. I do think removing the overruns was a mistake, they made for interesting tactics and a different feel to tanks. Right now tanks just seem like one more "rock paper scissors" element... well not entirely but they don't seem terribly different from other units. I find I am doing fine with just one armor in my core often!

[vonRocko]

Good post lparkh. I wonder, has anyone tried an all infantry mix? With air and artillery of course, but no panzers. "Infantry Korps"

[GaryChildress]

Tanks were invaluable weapons in WWII. I'm tinkering with the database on a campaign I'm doing. Does anyone have suggestions on what stats tanks could be given to make them more valuable? Perhaps nerfing the armor attack on infantry units might help?

[GaryChildress]

Actually, looking at the stats it isn't possible to nerf armored attack any more on the early war infantry since they are all set to "1".

What would happen if "ground defence" were reduced for infantry units, but not close defense?

Maybe there needs to be another statistic, a separate value for "armored defense"?

[Rudankort]

ORIGINAL: lparkh

Having played through the 39 campaign now, I have a better feel for the design intent. There is indeed a lot more combat result variation than prior PGs.. leading almost inevitably to losing core units (at least for me.. I play "iron man" and accept losses). But the compensation for this is that initial experience is gained very quickly and experience plays less of a role in the combat results (it seems). Therefore, losses are an inevitable part of play but are compensated for quickly. So in this sense more random results is "ok" and encourages accepting losses, which is more "realistic" than the old PG.

The problem here is that you usually attach more to units which annihilate everything in sight. If unit's performance is average, you will not attach to it, even if it has a pile of medals, heroes and combat history on it. But overpowered units are bad for game balance. This is exactly the reason why they do not exist in PzC. Not because it is more "realistic", realism is not an utmost concern in this kind game.

The role of experience in PzC is complex. On one hand, you can probably play with green units only, especially on lower difficulty. On the other hand, experience allows you to pack more punch into the same number of core slots (which is always a useful thing, especially on harder levels like Manstein), and at the same time it serves as a prestige sink. If you have a lot of prestige, it is unwise to use green replacements. If you are low on prestige, green replacements is all you can afford. Both strategies are viable, and every player finds his own balance between green and elite replacements. I think, this is the right approach. Your core will not be crippled if you cannot accumulate enough experience. And it will not become overpowered if you do get all 5-star elites.

The downside is I find I am less attached to units because there loss is less vital and their experienced status is less vital. I also find the "heroes" rather boring compared to the old "Leaders" in PG2 with their rather unique effects. Those "Leaders" also increased the sense of "value" of high experience units. More so then one stat add due to a hero.

Marketing does amazing things. Most leaders in PG2 were also stats-changers, but thanks to fancy names like "aggressive attack" and "tenacious defense" this was not so obvious. As for leaders which did have fancy abilities, many of them destroyed game balance too.

p.s. I do think removing the overruns was a mistake, they made for interesting tactics and a different feel to tanks. Right now tanks just seem like one more "rock paper scissors" element... well not entirely but they don't seem terribly different from other units. I find I am doing fine with just one armor in my core often!

Even though PzC and PG2 are very similar on the first glance, they are different games. From all you have said, looks like for you PG2 is a better choice. But it does not mean that PzC is worse and must adapt elements from PG2 to get better.

[lparkh]

Thanks for taking to reply. I am probably just old and set in my ways.. but then I am attempting to adopt the new with PzC
On experience it was my impression that two stars in PzC is worth "less" (i.e. less impact in combat) then 2stars in the PG1 or PG2. Is that fair?
You have a point about the marketing names btw

[Rudankort]

ORIGINAL: lparkh
On experience it was my impression that two stars in PzC is worth "less" (i.e. less impact in combat) then 2stars in the PG1 or PG2. Is that fair?

In PG you get +1 to all stats (except initiative) per star. In PzC you get +1 or +10% to each stat, whichever is smaller. This means that for primary stats (with are generally large) you get the same bonus as in PG. But for secondary stats the bonus is small.

Consider a tank for example, it has good ground defense and good attack ratings, so you get full bonus. On the other hand, close defense of a tank is small, and so experience bonus to it is also small. Consequently, the tank becomes much more powerful in the open, but in close terrain it still must fear infantry. This is different to PG where experienced tanks could walk over all other units, in both open and close terrain.

Another example. Fighters get a good bonus to their air attack, initiative and defense, which makes them much more effective against other planes. But they don't get any bonus to their ground attack ratings. In PG experienced fighters could act as bombers, but in PzC it is no longer the case.

I must admit that this scheme is not perfect. In particular, it does not work so well for infantry. So there is definitely some room for improvement.