[Discussion] How to improve urban combat in PzC/MC

[Dog Soldier]

-Boost the infantry/anti tank guns hard attack when attacking a tank unit situated in an urban hexagon
I think I see what you are saying. The assumption is that armor has no adequate infantry support to deal with AT defenders and that armor is taking routes through the hex that are along the streets where the defensive AT are sighted. There is already a rule in the game engine for armor in congested terrain without adequate infantry support reducing the armor effectiveness and making armor vulnerable to assault. The latter assumption is beyond the scope of the game. Suffice to say that the direct fire results min and max values account for armor moving into enemy bore sites or along undefended routes in the hex.

Is there a rule to represent that? I didn't know, how it's called?

There are several. Look under the section about assaults in the user manual. There is the terrain modifier of the defending hex which is applied to the attackers assault value reducing his assault by 30 - 50 percent if vehicles are included in the assault.

Then there is the combined arms penalty when armor assaults with insufficient infantry forces. Urban terrain is no place for armor without lots of friends. PzC/MC has this aspect right.

Dog Soldier

[Volcano Man]

Also, to add what DS said (unless someone has said this already), the rubble (and any built up terrain for that matter, like forests) cause a higher % of vehicle breakdowns to occur as the vehicle travels through it simply because of the massive amount of MPs expended in the hex (usually all).

I find that driving a vehicle unit through town, hex by hex, while fighting the enemy will deplete it very quickly.

[P.Ako]

Ok ok i get it, you don't want to modify the urban combat system, ok.

BTW, "a lot" was 1 german panzer brigade plus the divisional troops and two British Brigades.

[JDR Dragoon]

Ok ok i get it, you don't want to modify the urban combat system, ok.

Well, if it ain´t broken, why fix it?

[Volcano Man]

Yes, and besides that, who exactly is going to "fix" it? Anyone can make their own scenario where the cities are practically impervious to all fire if that is really what they want. I think the maximum defensive modifier you can go with the urban area without making it totally immune to enemy fire is -59%. With typical TRENCHES defensive modifier of -40% + the City hex -59% = -99% total defensive modifier possible. Only 1% of the attacker's fire will get through to the defenders. You could do this for both the Industrial and City hexes, but have industrial hexes have a higher MP cost or something like that. Town and Village hexes would probably have to increase by the same scale if you want it to be believable.

This approach would probably be justifiable for modern cities in MC, but you would need nothing short of nuclear weapons and chemicals to get units out of a city. Also, it wouldn't really make much sense though since vehicle units would also gain a -99% defensive bonus as well. The trick is you have to make urban areas some of the highest defensive areas but not make them "too high". The current values accomplish that nicely.

A more realistic approach would be to require vehicle units to be in T mode in order to enter and sit in a City, Town, or Industrial hex (but not a village or rubble hex). This would make vehicle units extremely vulnerable as they sit in these areas (out in the streets; half defense value and receive no bonus from defensive modifiers) and influence them to keep out if all possible, or unless you have an armored units with very high defense value. I have suggested this before a long time ago but it didn't really go anywhere. :( Some ideas would make the game more realistic, sure, but at the end of the day you just have to make a scenario or mod in the image of what you want it to be within the limitations of the game engine.

[Dog Soldier]

A more realistic approach would be to require vehicle units to be in T mode in order to enter and sit in a City, Town, or Industrial hex (but not a village or rubble hex). This would make vehicle units extremely vulnerable as they sit in these areas (out in the streets; half defense value and receive no bonus from defensive modifiers) and influence them to keep out if all possible, or unless you have an armored units with very high defense value. I have suggested this before a long time ago but it didn't really go anywhere. :( Some ideas would make the game more realistic, sure, but at the end of the day you just have to make a scenario or mod in the image of what you want it to be within the limitations of the game engine.

Travel mode would accomplish what you want for a specific case VM. By forcing travel mode, you would get the unintended consequence of vehicles not using bombed out buildings, hiding around corners, or just plain dug in hull down behind a stone wall along a street for the defenders.

As for attackers, they would use an advance by bounds alternating movement between the infantry and armor with the armor over watching each small advance rush by the infantry. At least that is how I see armor moving in an urban zone where resistance is expected. Forcing travel might make sense for the attackers if the enemy positions are unknown. If the enemy has already been in contact with the attacking infantry and the tanks are brought up for direct fire support, I would assume the tanks will try to find the best cover or angles to set up for their fire support.

Such tactical considerations may not be able to be modeled at the PzC / MC scale, so a wide range of outcomes from direct fire attempts can be the best we can do to show how urban combat can be such an uncertain thing for both sides from the player / commander's POV

Dog Soldier

[Volcano Man]

As for attackers, they would use an advance by bounds alternating movement between the infantry and armor with the armor over watching each small advance rush by the infantry. At least that is how I see armor moving in an urban zone where resistance is expected. Forcing travel might make sense for the attackers if the enemy positions are unknown. If the enemy has already been in contact with the attacking infantry and the tanks are brought up for direct fire support, I would assume the tanks will try to find the best cover or angles to set up for their fire support.

Well, the problem is that a vehicle unit in PzC / MC etc can bring the full weight of its power (attack, defense, assault) to the fight in an urban environment (in these games). This is obviously not the case in real life and it matters not whether you are talking about operational level or tactical level; I spent countless hours at the armor branch's Fort Knox MOUT site where tank / infantry urban operations are (edit: were) practiced and honed, and even participated in much of the training myself when the now current US doctrine on armor in urban environments was being developed. It is pretty far fetched to think that an armor unit of any size would operate at its full potential in such places, simply because it is too restricted and you essentially have no benefit of terrain whatsoever. Forget the idea that tanks "hide" behind buildings and move down the street to shoot and back up, especially in a place where it is pretty much unknown who is in what building, and the fact that the enemy can come at you from three dimensions, including the subterranean level. The fact that the streets are the places where the vehicles are relegated to be ensures that they are always seen, heard, and limited to how many vehicles in said unit can be "presented" at one time.

Whether it be the tanks defending against infantry assault, or on the "attack" themselves with other tanks or infantry, the fact is they are extremely vulnerable and restricted in such environments to the point that they are only marginally effective. In such environments they exist only to support the infantry, not to operate alone or in the lead. This is contrary to what you can achieve in PzC and MC. It certainly must be true that tanks are marginally effective in such places or else, in the real world, tanks and vehicle units would prefer such places as their optimal fighting place, and would gravitate towards urban areas as places of sanctuary to project fire superiority outward. This IS what happens at the operational level in these games. And this IS what forcing them to be in T mode to sit in such hexes would reduce. There is no amount of justification and abstraction that can cover the fact that the armor (vehicles) in urban areas is essentially as good as it is in open terrain in terms of firepower, yet they are much more effective than armor in open terrain because they gain extremely high defensive benefits -- thus, they receive the best of both worlds (vehicles can prefer to sit in urban areas to be "better off" at using the full weight of its fire on enemy vehicles in the open). In short, it makes perfect sense to penalize vehicle units (both offensively and defensively) at the operational level, tactical level, or individual vehicle level, for operating in such places.

Still, my point is not to change anything per se, but I will defend the case and I would be lying if I said this is not the one aspect that (IMO) should improve. ;) However, my point was simply that there is no shortage of "good ideas", but what it all comes down to is simply taking it for what it is and, if there is no satisfaction in that, then you have to make a scenario that favors more to what you would like to see (within the limitations of the engine).

[James Ward]

I agree with VM on this. Is this something you could put in your mods?

[Volcano Man]

Is this something you could put in your mods?

Well, there is one thing that could be done, and that is to make towns, cities and industrial hexes impassible to tracked vehicles. This would restrict tanks and the like to only being able to move down roads in T mode while in such places, but the validity of this would largely depend on map design. Some cities on the map have enough roads to make this work, while other maps have no roads whatsoever in any city (MC Germany map?). So this is probably something that will not work, not to mention, it doesn't make much sense to totally restrict such units from moving through said place if it does not have a road through it.

The minimal option, which I have done in all the _Alts, is make city, town and industrial hex require all of the MPs of a mechanized unit to go from one hex to another while deployed. Of course this does nothing for the attack / defense values though.

[Dog Soldier]

I see your point Ed. You make a good case for vehicle units firing from one urban hex into another. Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences.

I am still not certain that a vehicle in an urban hex shooting at another vehicle in the open approaching the urban hex should have a firepower reduction. I would think the vehicle unit has the advantage of chosen defensive locations, interlocking fields of fire, bore sighted locations etc. while the vehicles in the open would have a harder time spotting where the fire comes from, at least initially. I have seen operational games where initial contact can result in little information about the revealed unit, or even wrong information, (example: In the first day of the Bulge 44 offensive American infantry were reporting far more Tiger tanks than existed. Every tank was a Tiger when you on the business end on the panzer without an adequate ATW!)

Are these really separate instances that would require modeling them different? Could you enlighten me why defending from an urban hex on the perimeter of the urban area, (PzC represents this lower density with village hexes) should result in a reduction of firepower on targets approaching the position?

Dog Soldier