Question re: Action Cost & Movement Allowance

[Guderian]

I am a veteran Campaign Series ("CS") player making the jump to Panzer Campaigns ("PzC").

In CS, a unit's actions are limited by the number of Action Points ("AP") it has. Firing costs 35 AP and movements costs are determined by the terrain being moved into as well as the specific kind of moving unit. For example, in CS, it costs less for a T-34 to enter a particular terrain than a Tiger, even though both units are "tanks."

In PzC, a unit's actions appear to be limited by its Movement Allowance ("MA"), which appears to be modified by a units quality, i.e., Morale A thru F.

In CS, I'm able to plan my actions ahead of time because I know how much AP certain actions cost. In PzC, I am having difficulty doing this.

Using the Parameter Data Dialog, I think I am able to re-calculate the cost of movement, but deploying and firing (and maybe assaulting) do not appear to cost as much movement allowance as the manual says it should. Also, I am not sure how "speed" affects cost since it appears, for example, that all armored cars expend 6 MA to enter clear terrain even though, for example, in CS a German armored car, in general, has better off-road speed than a Soviet armored car.

Can a veteran PzC player explain to me how the cost of deploying, firing and assaulting is determined? I'd rather not rely on the "Save Movement Cost" button, as it seems off sometimes (probably because I don't understand how the cost is being calculated).

Thanks in advance. I hope to try my first PzC Play by E-mail game as soon as I've learned the PzC game system.

[Dog Soldier]

The movement allowance in PzC is derived from the speed in the unit profile. However, this algorithm is not explained on purpose. Units are not robots with precise movements. While the units in PzC are very reliable, they always try to go where you tell them to and will get there baring hidden enemy units out of LOS, many other factors are not modeled such as units getting lost. An example would be a battalion moving up and one of the companies loses contact with its neighbor company. Now should the battalion counter stop at this point and lose movement points to reorganize or should it shed a company counter which you will have to move up later?
In any case, your PzC units will not have any of these types of problems.

The amount of MP for direct firing is 1/3 of the MA, and assaulting are 2/3 of the initial movement allowance. This is affected by ground conditions and terrain.
Moving in deep snow or mud will cost more than the base movement points for the unit. These conditions may leave you with not enough MP (after rounding) to fire or assault.
In the case of assault, terrain will impact whether the unit can move up and assault. A unit may not be able to enter the terrain hex the enemy occupies due to high movement cost (or movement cost on the hex side plus the enemy hex terrain cost when a stream or such is between your unit and the enemy. You will just have to wait out the enemy turn.
Good defense in PzC takes terrain into account to allow the defending player to shoot up your attacking troops in his turn. Relying on only AI defensive fire is just not good play.

You should get yourself familiar with the buttons "Reachable Hexes" and "Save Movement Cost". These take into account the numerous variables in the pdt so you can plan a move for a unit. Every title has slightly different pdt files. Mods like the popular VM _alt series have radically different pdt values for terrain costs. all this adds up to a very different operational feel than CS.

Bottom line, the terrain costs, for example, for all "tanks" are the same as these are "tracked vehicles" in the pdt and nationality differences are buried in the unit oob values. This system takes into account the differences fro leadership, training etc. but only in a broad brush stroke kind of way at say the divisional or higher level depending on the developer's ideas.

PzC is more about getting a feel and rhythm for the most part, than precise "number crunching" to achieve good play.
The math works out just as it should. It takes a lot to understand the math, In some parts of the game system the math just is not spelled out, because war is not a precise mathematical exercise. In PzC be prepared for the unexpected, even after you lay careful, detailed plans...cause stuff happens in the game as it does in war. Good tactics from the period will work. I rarely count MP in PzC unlike my old board game days.

Dog Soldier

[Liebchen]

Relying on only AI defensive fire is just not good play.

This is not always necessarily so, IMHO. If my goal is to delay the offensive troops for as long as possible, then firing my defending troops during my turn gives the enemy "defensive fire" shots and may hasten my own units' breakdown or demise. Therefore, under these particular circumstances, I will often not actively fire, but will make the offensive player spend his turn (and time) hammering away at my units.

[Dog Soldier]

You are correct Liebchen. However, I should have better stated that passive defense does not win scenarios. Scenarios where only a passive defense is possible is not of much interest to PBEM play. After all, who wants to just be a "human AI"?

Dog Soldier

[Liebchen]

It's more of a tactical decision, not a scenario-wide philosophy.

[Guderian]

Guys,

Thank you for your replies.

Dog Soldier,

I have been reading your AAR's. They are exciting, entertaining, and contain some good tips. I hope you will continue writing them.

I think it's time for me to try my first PzC PBEM game.