PZC System not much being said

[JonS1]

Another thought: Non-Combat-Loss-Rates (NCLR)

Currently: Vehicles have some (PDT modifiable) chance of losing strength as they expend movement points (MPs), and that rate can be upped substantially by flagging a unit as "Low Reliability". This reflects the overall fragility of vehicles when used for military purposes, and also allows the differences between, say, a Sherman and a Centaur, or a Pz IV and a Tiger, to shine through.

However, it has always struck me as a little odd that a game that ostensibly also tracks every man and gun pretends that the only way those are lost is through direct enemy action.

Proposal: Extend this principle to NCLRs for inf-type-units (ITU) and gun-type-units (GTU), again editable in the PDT.

For ITUs this would reflect sickness, leave, people going away on courses, being run over, breaking a bone while horsing around, training accidents, or any of the hundreds of other ways a man could find himself away from the front line. The NCLR would apply every turn, but would typically be quite low - for example in Normandy about .05% for the Allies. That would lead to an infantry bn losing about 4 men per day, while a division would lose about 50-60 men/day. Generally, the NCLR and the reinforcement rate (RR) would interact to produce a 'steady state' somewhere below 100% for units, which is entirely reasonable. However, that would only happen for units out of the line, since the RR doesn't apply to units expending MPs. For units held in the line the NCLR would produce a steady drain in addition to any combat losses.

For GTUs the NCLR would represent mechanical failure of the equipment - breech or bore prems, busted recuperators, etc. In practice, the GTU NCLR could be the same as either the ITU NCLR, or the vehicle breakdown rate. Given the small numbers of items typically found in a GTU, the effect would be rare but noticeable. For example, a US 12-gun bn might expect to see one gun lost every fortnight, but on the flipside a US inf div would expect to lose one of its many guns every couple of days, and a US corps would expect to lose a couple of guns every day.

Like vehicles, the GTU NCLR would only apply when the unit was expending MPs.

I would think that the NCLR would have a random element around the set value. So a rate of .05% would typically see 4 men per day per full battalion, but in practice it could be anything between 1 and 10, for example.

The rate might also be modified based on the unit's morale; .05% for A, .06% for B, .07% for C, etc, down to .1% for No Morale.

A similar modification for fatigue would make sense, since tired soldiers are more apt to make mistakes. eg "Green Fatigue + C Morale" gives .07%, "Yellow Fatigue + C Morale" gives .17%, "Red Fatigue + C Morale" gives .27%, and "Red Fatigue + No Morale" gives .3% (or 24 men NCLR'd per day). Again, with variation around the expected results.

For individual units the effect is slight, but across larger scenarios it would start to add up, and further encourage players to pull units out of the line from time to time to rest and recover, and punishes repeated use of exhausted and disheartened units.

Regards
JonS

[Scar]

I could not resist coming in here at the end with thoughts on the ALT fire discussion and three areas where I think the rules could be updated a bit to add to the game.

If I am not mistaken, the game system originally had artty hit every unit in the hex. Sometime after K42 came out it was changed to the current system. I argued against the change and was not comfortable with the new rule, now I can not see it working any other way. Its kind of neat seeing things come back full circle.

My suggested areas for change or modification are:

1. HQ's, command radius, and its effects on the game. It looks like some changes here are already on the way, and I feel like only good things can come from expanding on the command rules.

2. Recon rules. Recon capable units would be used more historically, instead of like light tanks as things are now, if the spotting would be adjusted. The ability needs to be increased, ie range extended and probability increased. That would make these units important and worth saving for recon duties.

3. Surrender rules. Units that are isolated, routed and ajacent to enemy units should lose men each turn. This would simulate the trickle of soldiers that would just call it quits when things were bleak. I would even go so far as to say isolated disrupted units that are adjacent to enemy units should lose men each turn.

Scar

[Glenn Saunders]

[JonS1]

I ... have Helicopters on my list for MC

Any thoughts on the truck pool idea posted on the previous page? The basic mechanics of that should be readily extensible to any kind of non-organic tpt, be it helos, trucks, APCs, kangaroos, dukws, buffalos, etc etc.

Changing tack, yet again: Engineers

Currently: Some engineering tasks are dependant on the number of men in the unit and the quality of the unit (eg, building bridges, clearing rubble, blowing bridges). In effect, these tasks have a random uncertainty around when and whether they will be completed. Other tasks are only dependant on the mere presence of an undistrupted engineering unit, regardless of size or quality (eg, clearing mines, blowing tank ditches). In effect, these tasks are guaranteed to be carried out as long as at least one sapper is on the job.

Proposal: Have re-think about what engineering tasks require in terms of manpower and skill.

IMO the dependancies 'should' be:

• * Building bridges: Ouality and Size of unit (engineers stacked in the same hex working on the same task should be treated as being a composite whole, though perhaps using the lowest morale level present)(Incidentally building should also cost the engineer unit fatigue)
  
  * Blowing bridges: Quality only. Possible enhancements to factor in time requirement and/or size of unit requirement for medium, large, and rail bridges. (Incidentally - is there a reason engineers can't repair blown bridges? Timescale would be similar to clearing rubble, and dependant on the class of bridge being repaired.)
  
  * Clearing Rubble: Ouality and Size of unit (engineers stacked in the same hex working on the same task should be treated as being a composite whole, though perhaps using the lowest morale level present)(Incidentally clearing should also cost the engineer unit fatigue)
  
  * Clearing Mines: Ouality and Size of unit (engineers stacked in the same hex working on the same task should be treated as being a composite whole, though perhaps using the lowest morale level present) (Incidentally, giving mineclearing orders should require full - or at least some - movement points)(Incidentally clearing should also cost the engineer unit fatigue)
  
  * Blowing AT Ditches: Quality only.
  
  * Ferrying: Quality and Size of unit (there should be some relationship between the size of the unit doing the ferrying, and the amount of men it can ferry in a turn.)(Incidentally ferrying should also cost the engineer unit movement points and fatigue)
  
  * Mine laying: Quality and Size of unit.(Incidentally laying should also cost the engineer unit fatigue)
  

[Glenn Saunders]

Any thoughts on the truck pool idea posted on the previous page?

Honestly - I don't see it happening Jon. Way to much implication for previous titles where units have already been designated FOOT and Motorized ect.

I never say never - and it isn't up to me what gets done or not done. I just don't see it workable within this engine.

Glenn

[Hadge]

Hi all

I'm with Glenn on this latest aspect of the discussion

The Pcamp system IMO revolves around the relationship between battalion sized units in the context of an operational battle, and does it admirably.

Whilst I admire the work done by VM and other in the area of detailed enhancement - I also enjoy the consistency of the box standard system and the way it manages to convey the feel of operational combat at this level.

I also remember the old days of SPI when the addition of "chrome" led to poor and unplayable games, which did'nt work correctly, were late on the shelf, and were expensive - this, in the end, was a contributing factor in them going bust!

Im all in favour of enhancements, but I think its good not to go too far, if that detracts from improvements that are universally applicable in all situations.

Keep up the good work HPS

Chris

[JonS1]

Way to much implication for previous titles where units have already been designated FOOT and Motorized ect. ... I just don't see it workable within this engine.

Hmm. I wasn't very clear or coherent. I don't see any implication for units already designated FOOT or MOT, etc. Only FOOT-type units would be eligible for getting "On Trucks" - MOT units by definition have no requirement for this. Also, if the pool were implemented as a PDT value (or values) then there wouldn't even be a requirement to go back and alter old scens. If users choose to do so; splendid. If not then that fine too, and the scens continue to perform exactly as they do now.

The way I approached it was as a counterpoint to the "On Foot" capability that MOT units already have. If they can get off a truck, then FOOT units should be able to get on one.

The only requirement after the ability to get "On Trucks" is some limit to the number of FOOT units that can be "On Trucks" at any time, and a mechanisim for changing the size of the pool as units get on or off trucks - and a very simplistic implementation could even do away with that requirement (with the downside that players might choose to "On Truck" their entire force). The effect of being "On Trucks" - in terms of combat values - would be the same as for MOT units currently, or more specifically the change in their values when going "On Foot".

To extend that to other transport types would appear relatively trivial - a pool for trucks, another for helos, another for dukws, another for APCs/IFVs, etc. In WWII games the helo pool would obviously be 0, and the size of the other pools would adjust as required, dependant on scen and time period. I suppose a very nuanced implementation might have flags indicating whether each unit can get on trucks, APCs, dukws, helos, etc, but just limiting it to "only FOOT-type units can make use of any transport pool" would be sufficient.

One way of doing it with the current engine would be to designate all FOOT units as MOT type instead, then put most or all of them "On Foot". Then, during games, players would manually track which units are "On Foot" and which are in their native state (ie, motorised), and try to ensure that only the amount deemed appropriate for each side (ie, ~ 1/3rd for the Western Allies, 5% for the Axis, or sumfink) were 'native'. Possible, but exceedingly clumsy, and essentially not practical. And, of course, it would only work as a pseudo truck pool, not as a helo-pool or anything else.

Regards
JonS

P.S. usual disclaimers regarding "I'm not a programmer", etc. Also, I don't underestimate the effort involved in buidling and testing, which is why in the outline I've tried to stay close to current functionality.

[JonS1]

Hi Hadge, in general I agree with you, but have a slightly different take on it, obviously :)

The Pcamp system IMO revolves around the relationship between battalion sized units in the context of an operational battle, and does it admirably.

Well, what is "operational"? Seriously. I always thought that the operational level dealt with Corps/Army sized units (for the Germans and Western Allies) involved in battles spanning several weeks.

The kinds of scenarios included in PzC modules would tend to support that view, I think.

Given that, what are the important factors at that scale?

Taking the most recent discussion, I think flexible transport is one of them. Looking specifically at the more modern campaigns, the way that air-mobile (helo) ops are implemented strikes me as really odd. The helos are treated - by the game - as not only essentially indestructible, but also totally bound to a particular group (pn, coy, bn, whatever) of infantry. There is no flexibility to reassign helos to lifting other units, against all practical evidence to the contrary.

Im all in favour of enhancements

And based on their performance with PzC (and all the other games that use the same basic engine) over the last decade, so are HPS ;)

Regards
JonS