The Competition & Teaser Thread

[Xaver]

Thanks for the info.

Great know that combine units now punish less when you want save a heavy damage subunit.

I understand the problem with subunits wining faster fatigue specially for nations that have as strenght their better tactical flexibility, this is something i allways find strange in PzC/MC... i allways think that fatigue needs use 3 values:

-one is the unit type (if is subunit, 2 or more subunits joined or a full unit... i think in soviet battalions they are a single unit) like the one used.

-other the casualties % bigger the unit lower the fatigue it wins (usually germans have bigger battalions VS soviet battalions but you can see strange things like a german company that is 50% of a soviet battalion strenght wining fast fatigue... or the extreme situation in Budapest title where a 200 men soviet battalion win fatigue very slow even when suffer heavy casualties)

-and a last value could be a nation modifier where you can select if A-B-C units can recover or not fatigue even when they suffer casualties or fatigue... i refer that some units even under fire and in combat dont need be out of action to recover "cohesion" this is not covered in the engine but as abstraction for me is inside fatigue.

Other point if how units are disrupted, sometimes you can see the biggest unit with all subunits joined enter in D status after lose 1 soldier and a company suffer a lot of casualties and no D status, how works now in PzB??? a company offer less chance to enter in D status over platoons???.

Thanks.

[Xaver]

Well, these days i was more on the game features than in the competition and i miss the value of the new pics for it, i think that we have a winner because PzB smells to burning tanks in the south or certain bulge, if you think i am crazy see this images.






and compare with this





Ummm i see III Pz Korps HQ, Kosacks, 6th panzer division, railroad crossing a village, 676 gren regiment (that was part of the 332 infantry division in PzAOK4 in the left flank of LSSAH).

What do you think??? i am crazy??? i need stop drinking homemade vodka or i can play super loto to win millions with my amazing superpowers??? hehehe.

[Aaron]

I think you should share your vodka

[Kuriltai]

...and your Lotto numbers

Good detective work,Xaver

[Xaver]

Hahaha maybe i can share it with the kossacks or red army soldiers in south flank, loto... well, with my luck in last moment i leave the good one to take other

Is curious but i find the kursk images when i see the 676 gren regiment unit and try find the unit war history, this leave me to 332 security division, 332 infantry division, Kursk and i only need open Kursk 43 to find the division, i see it in the left flank of LSSAH and them i search for 6th PzD and i see how the initial deployment is the same as in the PzB images in all aspects, the Kossaks, 3rdPzA HQ in a village, the rails to the north where there is a rail cross, the river, the 6th PzD infantry units, the arty units... 1+1=2 simple maths hehehe.

If in the end is Kursk i think are 2 guys that can win the competition

Ricky B was the first in say Kursk:

"Panzer Battles: Kursk '43"

But ComradeP was more precise because i think the title is going to cover only the south flank:

"Panzer Battles: Prokhorovka. (Panzer Battles: Kursk would be a less catchy title, and if it's primarily focussed on the fighting on the southern part of the Kursk salient it would also be somewhat misleading)"

I arrive to late but my first option when see images was a title only based in south to:

"Panzer battles: Kursk 43 clash of titans in the south flank"

Expect we can know who is right soon, when i see the competition i think the release was very close in time because a competition like this is to increase interest in game because is going to be on store in weeks, no months, i have hope to see game in this month or in february with a little luck

[Strela]

Expect we can know who is right soon, when i see the competition i think the release was very close in time because a competition like this is to increase interest in game because is going to be on store in weeks, no months, i have hope to see game in this month or in february with a little luck

With a little luck!!

Back to the

David

[Xaver]

hehehe.

A little question, you do something with the minefields art??? thanks.

[ComradeP]

I don't entirely like the current fatigue mechanics for 2 reasons:

1) As losses in active parts of the front are much higher than in real world operations, fatigue can also rise to a level where a unit becomes combat ineffective way before its historical counterpart. Taking a battle like Korsun as an example, both German corps inside the pocket seem to have suffered only ~300 losses per day KIA/long term WIA/MIA, combined. It's always surprising to read just how low combat casualties were compared to wargames. In a wargame, you destroy division after division. In the real war, a battalion suffering 50 casualties in a single day was extreme, at least for the Germans.

On average, Soviet casualties were also not all that much higher than those suffered by Allied armies in Normandy as mentioned in the book I'm currently reading, but that's misleading because in combat the Soviets could lose most of a battalion in a single attack. Taking Korsun as an example again: an attack is mentioned where a Soviet unit loses ~500 men in a single attack.

In a PzC title, attacker Assault losses are often not all that high for single assaults and fatigue gains varies. The defender is usually worse off. This is why it's difficult to replicate situations where a weak force held a much stronger force at bay, also because doctrine and protection offered by a hex are just modifiers and not real defense values (as in: a unit always takes losses, you can generally get a die roll where it takes losses even when such a result would be highly unlikely at best in real world conditions).

2) I agree with Outlaw Josey Wales that fatigue gains for small units can be problematic, because in real world conditions when fighting units were small (which generally meant the fighting was desperate) those men often did the best they could without minding losses as much as their pixelated counterparts. 30 men in a hedgehog position with a reasonable number of automatic weapons was a viable defensive force against a Soviet attack without artillery support. In game terms, it would be more or less toast after 1 Assault most of the time.

Xaver: Prokhorovka wasn't my official guess, so Ricky B would still win if it's a Kursk Panzer Battles title.

[Strela]

I don't entirely like the current fatigue mechanics for 2 reasons:

1) As losses in active parts of the front are much higher than in real world operations, fatigue can also rise to a level where a unit becomes combat ineffective way before its historical counterpart. Taking a battle like Korsun as an example, both German corps inside the pocket seem to have suffered only ~300 losses per day KIA/long term WIA/MIA, combined. It's always surprising to read just how low combat casualties were compared to wargames. In a wargame, you destroy division after division. In the real war, a battalion suffering 50 casualties in a single day was extreme, at least for the Germans.

Comrade P,

I couldn't agree more. In war games (board or PC) players will usually push their units to destruction whether they are attacking or defending.

That said I rationalise losses at this scale as being more than the traditional KIA/WIA/MIA. From the Panzer Battles FAQ;

Losses of men in Panzer Battles represent more than the traditional KIA/WIA/MIA. At the platoon/company scale, unit strength was eroded quickly due to combatants being out of command, cut off, losing weaponry or drifting to the rear. Losses also represent men who are ‘beyond’ disrupted and no longer playing an active role in the formation. Many formations were able to recover these stragglers and cut off soldiers overnight and reintegrate them back into the platoon/company.

The number of accounts I have read where troops were detached to take POW's or wounded to the rear or collect ammunition and supplies was surprising.

Fatigue as a mechanism is not used in many games systems and at least helps to show when a unit is approaching breaking point - before it loses every man. As a scenario designer we can lower objective VP's to put more emphasis on losses but that only goes so far.

Personally, I don't think this is a problem unique to Tiller games but all war games in general and its something that has to be taken into account when playing them - there is an inability to align losses with 'official records'.

Finally, in extended operations it's not the loss of 'grunts' that matters but the combat leadership - NCO's through to Captains, the lifeblood of any army. The more days in direct conflict the more chance these irreplaceable personnel are lost.

David

[Xaver]

Problem is that game victory conditions are static, you lose X men and you dont see the game points recovered when units increase their strenght, maybe a certain % of recovered casualties need be out of the score to simulate stragglers returning to the units.

Fatigue... well, i dont know how works the hex stack limit but if it has impact in units defense why not in units ratigue??? overstacking increase fatigue because units cant use terrain to perfect cover, they are more exposed to casualties and fatigue, this made small units like platoons alone in an hex harder to fatigue...

Ummm i think they are the only one to decide who win because for example you or me be more precise but we cant use them as first options after see PzB Kursk (very generic) and well, the panther clue appear AFTER we take our choice and well, an army panther unit is a big clue because panthers appear first in kursk with LSSAH in the south flank.