 |
|
Team Game - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Panzer Battles (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=280) +--- Thread: Team Game (/showthread.php?tid=66537) |
Team Game - Jeff Conner - 06-01-2014 Gentlemen Is there any interest in getting together enough players for a team game. I would like to try one of the Korps sized scenarios, but I'm not brave enough to do it by myself. I'll play either side. RE: Team Game - ComradeP - 06-02-2014 It might be worth waiting on the first patch, which will presumably iron out some of the issues that can make longer scenarios very difficult for the Germans. With many Soviet units being Fixed, advancing in a way that doesn't trigger to many of them is a mini-game of sorts in most of the German attacker corps sized scenarios. RE: Team Game - Jeff Conner - 06-02-2014 The only scenarios I have played that are very tough for the Germans are those that have bunkers and too short of a period of time to clear them. To get around the fixed unit issue, which I agree can take some of the fun out of playing the defender, I would suggest either of the Korps (they are listed as Army sized, but cover only large portions of II SS Panzer Korps) sized scenarios with the Russians attacking such as 7_08 or 7_12. While there are some fixed units, most will release at a certain time allowing the defender (and the attacker for that matter) some certainty of when his units will be available and not be entirely dependent on visibility. As for waiting for the first patch, I have no idea when that will take place nor exactly what it will cover. Perhaps you have better information than I do. But it is my understanding that David is using some of the PBEM game results to improve some of the scenarios. This would be a chance to supply some input on the large scenarios included in the game that are no likely to get played PBEM otherwise. And since we seem to disagree on how difficult the scenarios are for the Germans, perhaps you should agree to play and take the Russians? After all, it would be easy pickings. Jeff RE: Team Game - ComradeP - 06-02-2014 Quote:The only scenarios I have played that are very tough for the Germans are those that have bunkers and too short of a period of time to clear them. The early korps scenarios all have lots of bunkers, and even though you might theoretically have enough time to clear them, it could quite probably be too costly. 0705_06 might currently be the early korps-sized scenario where you have a reasonable chance to win. Currently, there's a night and day difference between scenarios where the defenders hold a bunker line and scenarios where the defenders are in trenches or improved positions, like the scenario you just finished. The Soviets, particularly with platoon-sized D quality defenders, don't really stand a chance without bunkers due to trenches and improved positions only reducing casualties by a small amount (the game has the same significant difference in protective benefits for bunkers compared to trenches as PzC) The scenarios where the Soviets are attacking seem to be as difficult as the ones where the Germans are attacking bunkers, so it certainly wouldn't be easy pickings to play as the Soviet attacker. I'm reluctant to play an early korps sized German scenario with Soviet defenders in bunkers or the later army/korps sized scenarios you mentioned, as you're likely to run out of time as the attacker or suffer unsustainable losses. RE: Team Game - Strela - 06-03-2014 (06-02-2014, 03:46 PM)ComradeP Wrote:Quote:The only scenarios I have played that are very tough for the Germans are those that have bunkers and too short of a period of time to clear them. I really want to make it clear that the slow grind through bunkers vs. much faster progress vs trenches/IP's is completely historical. The Soviets were tenacious when in their prepared lines much less so when in more temporary positions. Much of the action you see in the first two days scenarios are the Germans breaking through the first two (of three) defensive lines. The last major line was up on the Psel River/Prokhorovka and that was never to the same depth and preparation as the first line. The action was much more fluid in the days leading up to Prokhorovka. The Germans suffered the bulk of their casualties when assaulting the Soviet prepared defenses. The same issue happened to the Soviet assaults. They were poorly coordinated and facing an elite enemy. The major counter offensives on both July 8th & 12th were typified by heavy losses for the Russians. The scenarios essentially show this and were balanced with this in mind. Now that said, we never got the depth of testing we would have liked for the head to head (HTH) scenarios. If we did you would not have seen the game for another year. It takes a significantly longer time to play test a scenario between two players than it does against the AI and we never had time to do more than one or two HTH play throughs. Many of the issues being identified in the HTH scenarios are being addressed and will be available when we patch the game. That said, it is an iterative approach and we need the game to be played to understand where the issues you are seeing are. In some cases it is problems with the scenario setup, in others it is players not understanding how to best use the game system or not understanding the particular historical situation that is being simulated. We will continue to feedback on your observations and highlight which category any issues fall under. Essentially, you will see modifications for the HTH games in regard to number of game turns, releases and victory point requirements. these changes will be more accurate the more feedback we get. Don't hold off playing the scenarios!!! David RE: Team Game - ComradeP - 06-03-2014 Quote:I really want to make it clear that the slow grind through bunkers vs. much faster progress vs trenches/IP's is completely historical. Sure, I understand that and don't have a problem with a difference as such, but the unpredictable nature of defending in bunkers (the randomness involved with disruption) and the casualties defenders take from direct fire makes the difference larger than it would in my opinion have been in the war. For example, German units have such high SA values that they can kill defenders in trenches with direct fire with relative ease. Trenches provide good protection against flat trajectory weapons and a reasonable amount of protection from artillery, but the percentage protection bonus in the game decreases casualties only slightly and artillery fire is still devastating. D quality platoons often disrupt after the first barrage, or after losing a handful of men (this is similar to PzC where 600 men Rifle battalions would disrupt after losing about 10 men or so). Regardless of terrain, when the Soviets are in trenches the Germans tend to wash them away like a tidal wave in a handful of turns. Casualties from infantry combat are low when facing defenders in trenches (and not necessarily all that much higher when facing defenders in bunkers, the low Soviet SA and quality ratings limit the casualties they inflict). If the Germans (the Soviets need to do so anyway) would need to assault defenders in trenches, the pace would already slow down somewhat. This could be achieved by making the stacking limit percentage casualty multiplier work both ways, so for when units are above and below the limit. It already seems to work that way for artillery (platoons rarely take more than 1 or 2 losses from artillery units that would cause 5-10 losses to them as ~150 men companies), but an SS A quality PzG company can normally kill ~10 men with a single direct fire action. There being a difference between defending a fortified line or a line of trenches and improved positions is fine, it's the difference in how long it takes the Germans to move through them and how many casualties the Soviets take per turn that feels out of proportion in relative terms when comparing bunkers to trenches/improved positions. RE: Team Game - Strela - 06-03-2014 (06-03-2014, 03:39 PM)ComradeP Wrote: This could be achieved by making the stacking limit percentage casualty multiplier work both ways, so for when units are above and below the limit. It already seems to work that way for artillery (platoons rarely take more than 1 or 2 losses from artillery units that would cause 5-10 losses to them as ~150 men companies), but an SS A quality PzG company can normally kill ~10 men with a single direct fire action. This is one of the suggestions we are putting up for the first patch. It would force more close assaults to clean up the final survivors as you suggest and also increase the survivability of small units such as the two Tigers in Franz's excellent adventure. At the moment we are looking at a possible threshold of 25% of the stacking limit. Anything below this negatively impacts the incoming fire. We want to be careful that we don't bring in any unexpected side effects, but this is an example of the things we're considering. David RE: Team Game - Landser34 - 06-04-2014 Hi Jeff I would be interested with playing a team game under very tight turn rates no longer than a 3 or 4 day turn around because otherwise like other team games I have been involved in usually fall apart because turns get to be a couple of weeks before you get a turn back if you can find a couple of guys that can get a turns out count me in. RE: Team Game - Jeff Conner - 06-04-2014 Ok, Dennis, you make the fourth member. Since the scenarios are shorter here, we should be able to finish unlike most of the team games we have played in PzC, which do tend to fall apart for one reason or another. I'll wait until the weekend to see if we can get another player, but I think we can start with 2X2 if necessary. RE: Team Game - Xaver - 06-04-2014 I am interested but i prefer wait first patch, sorry. |
){kind=link}