PZC System not much being said

[cavalry corps]

There is an interesting thread about Defending the Reich below this, looks like a great game and i will get it .

Thre is little talk here these days about improving the PZC machine , its not perfect . Some time ago half the posts were about issues like ZOC , supply , movement etc

Now it seems to be a little more than a boad to chivy your opponent into a move or indeed find one .

So here is an ideas just for now ...

I would like to see units that fire at a stack not being able to select a unit but have it choosen , the biggest gamey issue i have is this at the moment . Getting rid of target selection will also stop all this dancing about in EA42 ( still a big problem ) Please tell me why its realistic to be otherwise .I could accept a unit with a higher hard attack value always defaults to that target so AT guns mainly fire at tanks

Second

I think thet the AA needs looking at

Either AA units need a big improvement or AA values could be taken from Inf / armour units as these big battalion stacks are the most dangerous , esp Russian Cavalry !!!!!!!!and I avoid them thats stupid . Stacking up should be penalised not encouraged when attacked by aircraft . Level bombers should all be designated as carpet types ( say all units over 10 planes ) as they carry a number of bombs but are far less accurate than FB or CD or F for sure .So should be able to miss( even hitting your own guys , that happend and still happens in 2000+AD ) .
Targets for attacking bombers should be choosen at random ... not allowing you to go for one 88 amoungst 1600 men and half tracks However units with higher hard attack values may attack armour in pref to soft targets

OK thats my 2c or as we say 2p



Michael

[Al]

[Volcano Man]

Sounds like you might want to start using the ALT airstrike resolution rule. This does indeed penalize the enemy from creating large stacks of soft targets.

[jonnymacbrown]

"Sounds like you might want to start using the ALT airstrike resolution rule."
Right Volcano Man! I've been asking and pleading with my opponents for alt indirect fire and alt airstrike rules for just this very reason. The problems cited by Cavalry Corps " I would like to see units that fire at a stack not being able to select a unit but have it choosen."[i]: All these issues are dealt with with the alt rules, especially over-stacking! von eges.

[Ricky B]

The one major issue you will run into, particularly with the alt indirect fire, is that as Glenn would say "the results will be different" from what the scenario is balanced for. I have mentioned this before, but quite awhile ago I got into a Kharkov campaign game as German, where the other player chose, as an experiment, to use the alt rules. The game probably didn't last 30 turns because the large Soviet stacks were chewed up by the alt artillery rule. Even the guard rifle divisions couldn't maintain cohesion, almost all being disrupted by that time and the attack bogged down without breaking through the German lines.

A scenario really needs to be tailored to the fire rules selected, as with France, otherwise things will change quite a bit in most of the games. So beware about global use of one or the other set of fire rules, even if you think they are more realistic - it really requires an alternate version of the scenario and PDT so that it is balanced and historical.

As to making all level bombers carpet bombers, per Michael's comments, that might be a good idea. The allied bombers in France were setup this way, I believe, but not the Germans - probably because they had an easier time, being more practiced, at hitting the target area than the Allies, and since the carpet bombing effects both sides the same, France might be a good example of how to go.

Rick

[jonnymacbrown]

Very interesting information Ricky. My only comment is: If players want to over-stack in a hex they ought to have to pay the price for this. Otherwise know that there should be a penalty for stacking hundreds of tanks, men and guns in a single hex. And the only way to penalize this is with alt indirect fire. von eges

[Ricky B]

My only further comment, in that case, is that again alter the scenarios to make it work with the rules chosen. Easy enough to do, but playing a Kharkov campaign with the alt fire rules is a nearly sure way to destroy the Soviets. On the other hand, tweak the campaign to adjust for the large stack losses that will occur and it will work historically. But if you choose Soviets and want the alt rules and/or your opponent doesn't care, great. Take if for what it is worth, interesting or not.

The Soviets consistently attacked on a 3-4 km frontage from 1943 on, which would be 2-3 battalions per hex, with two up and one back as they normally tried to do.

Rick

[Peter777]

Alt Fire Rules should apply per scenario and per side to reflect things like

- Artillery fire Communications/Control, as the war went on the Allies became more sophicated in there Artillery Fire control, where as late in the War the Germans lost the great flexibility of Fire Control they had due to communications break downs and there large reliance on field phones.

- Aircraft fire types should depend on the Aircraft type and point of time in the war. Fighter/Dive Bombers preform differently to Level Bombers, so the carpet bombing suggestion is a good idea.


Another change I would like to see is variable Fog of War based on scenario, to better represent Air Recon and control of the sky, plus the effects of terrian. On the western front 44/45 the Germans were often forced to resupply and move mainly by night as they would be spotted by Allied Recon Aircraft and/or Roaming Fighter Bombers, and then attacked with Aircraft or Artillery.


Another idea myself and PK discussed was a new setting for Recon units. Small Recon units could be set to a Recon mode where they could be set to retreat on contact with large NON Recon units, they would do this to minimise damage to the recon unit by giving ground. Some times they may retreat the wrong way and get into trouble but most of the time Recon unit would slowly retreat in front on non recon units that out numbered them.

Peter777

[Al]

The one major issue you will run into, particularly with the alt indirect fire, is that as Glenn would say "the results will be different" from what the scenario is balanced for.

Ricky B - As I was typing out my post I was also thinking about this very thing. Artillery, in particular, becomes a much more lethal weapon. Large concentrations (i.e., stacks) of infantry out in the open can sustain crushing losses as you alluded to in you Kharkov example.

I guess I'm just wondering what designers saw as the rationale for using the "regular" optional rules versus the alternate rules?

[von Nev]