The Competition & Teaser Thread

[tbridges]

Maybe this thread should be a sticky...?

[ComradeP]

Regarding the stacking limits, I wonder if armoured units can merge into companies. The armour stacking limits are quite generous in most PzC titles, and ~20 tanks in a single 250 meter hex could be quite an impressive force on this scale.

Even though replaying the battle of Kursk doesn't excite me all that much, I do have to say I'm looking forward to the series, particularly quick turn(around) times which will make it easier both for players to complete more than a handful of scenarios in a few months and for this series to compete with other detailed turn-based operational scale wargames in terms of how long it takes to complete a scenario.

[Xaver]

I am in the same situation, Kursk is not my favourite battle for a wargame and with PzB scale... maybe is better but i really prefer more fluid battles, here i think PzB meets north Africa is going to be a winner, better than PzC scale (here the only one i really find great as title is Tunis, Tobruk is not bad at all but the scale used in formations .... is not perfect for PzC engine and finally El Alamein, Kursk in the desert).

Main problem for me is in how works mines, i think engine need have "friendly minefields", "enemy minefields" and "neutral minefields" because to retreat first line units used as spotters you need lose troops in minefields and you open them to enemy (i think in the Mareth scen in Tunis for example).

Lets see, maybe they are trolling us and they release "PzB: Zombies Nazi and ABBA fans attack, when Armaggedon starts" hahahaha.

[Strela]

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.

Wrong!!!

---

Regarding the stacking limits, I wonder if armoured units can merge into companies. The armour stacking limits are quite generous in most PzC titles, and ~20 tanks in a single 250 meter hex could be quite an impressive force on this scale.

They are...! That said it's only the Germans with this sized companies and they rarely are at full strength. We also have the historical vehicle mix in each company so you will end up with a mish mash of different types of Mark III & Mark IV tanks. Also the stacking penalties kick in from the thirteenth vehicle so you run the risk of higher casualties the more vehicles in one spot....

---

Main problem for me is in how works mines, i think engine need have "friendly minefields", "enemy minefields" and "neutral minefields" because to retreat first line units used as spotters you need lose troops in minefields and you open them to enemy (i think in the Mareth scen in Tunis for example).

From the 'hidden but slowly revealed' FAQ;

Fortifications are owned by either side. This allows ‘friendly’ minefields, obstacles and fortifications to be seen.

David

[ComradeP]

The Soviets now have ~10 vehicle units as the smallest maneuver element or also ~5 tank units? I half expected that the Soviets would still be able to use ~20 tank battalions, as for mobile units a Soviet battalion is a Western company in effective strength in most cases. I guess it makes sense in this case though, as otherwise they'd automatically suffer more losses due to the new 50%> stacking limit penalties (which might not by itself be a problem, maybe it would add an interesting dimension to Soviet tank tactics: your losses are higher, but single units are bigger).

With small individual Soviet tank units, the effect of the quality penalty might, however, be more severe in relative terms, as you can absorb fewer losses and can't compensate for lack of quality by increasing quantity. Of course, that's difficult to do in PzC as well, at least with single units as the Germans have more Panzers belonging to the same HQ in their units. In a PzC title like Moscow '42, it can still be worth it to form a large stack with units from several different formations as the sheer quantity will compensate for the "units don't have the same HQ" penalty.

After thinking about it, I like the theory behind the stacking penalties, it seems an elegant solution to killer stacks and limits attacks from a single hexside (at least without penalties) thus encouraging spreading your units out a bit in a historical manner.

The lively discussion we've been having about the new series for the last month or two is also interesting

[Xaver]

Thanks a lot for the info, i laught a lot with the "'hidden but slowly revealed' FAQ"

Ummm you talk about spotting minefields by side, i understand that if you control certain defensive position (bunker or pillbox) you can "control" the defenses around it no??? but only you know they are you cant cross them without suffer casualties... but if they are yours from the start you can move over them at least suffering lower casualties???.

I think that soviets can use company as basic unit but only when they dont have mixed types, i think in a company with 5 T-34/76 1943 model and 3 T-34/76 1942 model and T-70s to complete the company but maybe this punish companies using a single tank model... maybe split companies in 2 subunits suffering some kind of penalty because the lack of radios need be showed at this level, germans can use smaller units, even single tanks, with no problem but soviets out of company level are a lot less flexible and weaker when try react to enemy presence.

Strela, nice try, but i think i score a direct hit

[Dog Soldier]

Having been involved in testing PzB with Strela for over a year now I can lay one misconception in this thread to rest. As a Soviet player I can assure you that Tigers and Panthers can die. They are not indestructible. If you wish to assume your 'cats' are wonder weapons, play your first PBEM games with me after the game's release.

I will show you where the wooden cross grow....

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

Well, obviously the Soviets have some weapons that can reliably take out a Tiger or Panther, and there's also the typical computer wargame situation where weak guns can take out a strong unit, because statistically speaking they can get a roll where they inflict 1 kill at some point. That's also why fortifications are somewhat flawed in many wargames: they tend to offer a higher defensive benefit, not actual protection. They decrease the chance for a lethal hit, they don't completely nullify certain hits in most cases.

That's the problem with dealing with numerical values with some variation: the variation can lead to results that were more or less impossible historically, such as an indirect fire barrage by a handful of infantry guns knocking out a tank.

[Nitram Draw]

That's the problem with dealing with numerical values with some variation: the variation can lead to results that were more or less impossible historically, such as an indirect fire barrage by a handful of infantry guns knocking out a tank.

I don't have a problem with how this is handled in these games. A kill doesn't necessarily mean destroyed, unless of course it is the last strength point. It can just mean disabled, knocking out a tread, causing the vehicle to become stuck, etc.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Tigers seem to die easily in SBs as well.