The Competition & Teaser Thread

[ComradeP]

Aside from very wide roads, major rivers with no buildings next to them, large squares or parks, I'm guessing we're still looking at "urban" hexes for city fighting and "village" or "town" hexes for smaller populated areas, all with a defense modifier.

There might be more special rules now aside from those for armour, that's a possibility, but from what has been shown thus far it seems the actual terrain in terms of hex types is still mostly identical to what it would look like in PzC.

At a 250 meter scale, there's still not a lot of room for empty hexes or increased detail in cities.

[Strela]

Another shot at movement arrows. Slightly less saturation.





David

[Strela]

Aside from very wide roads, major rivers with no buildings next to them, large squares or parks, I'm guessing we're still looking at "urban" hexes for city fighting and "village" or "town" hexes for smaller populated areas, all with a defense modifier.

There might be more special rules now aside from those for armour, that's a possibility, but from what has been shown thus far it seems the actual terrain in terms of hex types is still mostly identical to what it would look like in PzC.

At a 250 meter scale, there's still not a lot of room for empty hexes or increased detail in cities.

I think only the SqB or PzB system could be used for a title such as Stalingrad. If you want room to room fighting you need to go to SqB's or a scale below for it to work. PzB's with its platoon basis is about the limit for detailed city fighting.

The other changes that PzB (or any other game) would need to handle is the impact of multilevel buildings as well as the sewers. These were factors that strongly influenced the control (or lack) of any area. As pointed out, 250 meter hexes are more like city blocks and determining ownership in three dimensions could be difficult. Another consideration is that the map would have to be custom built with a much wider range of building types that could be manually placed in the configurations required. All cities are well mapped and players fighting in Berlin or Stalingrad would want to play on an accurate facsimile of that map.

Now that said, if these technical issues could be solved you could have a brilliant platoon/company simulation of city fighting. I am imagining opposing forces coexisting in the same hex if they are on different height levels, only assaulting if at the same level.

Another alternative is to change the hex size and stacking limits so more detailed map can be done and only say platoons can be in a particular hex. The game system is flexible enough to do it.


DON'T get me thinking about another project...!

David

[Xaver]

I think to cover urban fight game only needs a new feature... "infiltration" how works???

1-you can stack in the same hex friendly and enemy units, these units cant shoot or assault, they are in constant melee status.

2-the limit is hex stacking, enemy+friendly units cant be over stack limit (maybe here urban and other terrains where you can put more troops than in other terrain types need their own stack value) or other option is if in the hex are overstack the last unit suffer a negative penalty.

3-units in the same hex from diferent sides are in melee all the time, they win fatigue and suffer loses when turn starts, they are unable to receive replacements or reduce fatigue... maybe replacements... yes but 1/4 of standar value.

4-the infiltration combat value is defense+assault (tanks only can use assault for example, we need reduce the value of armor in urban fight BUT not a lot but his presence reduce the enemy units total value in a certain %) with the usual positive and negative bonus by unit quality, fatigue, disrupted, low ammo and broken.

5-when you have the infiltration value the side with lower value suffer extra casualties... lets see that in PDT the general infiltration casualty rate is... 2%, if units lose suffer 1% every 50 points under the winner infiltration value... for example.

6-loser has a chance to be disrupted or broken, again PDT value and winner has same value in PDT but lower, if a unit is OK and lose the check become disrupted if is disrupted become broken and leave the hex.

7-you can shoot over an infiltrate hex as over a normal hex BUT your units can suffer loses.

Urban fight is very hard to represent in a wargame over squad scale because with bigger hexes you need something to simulate very close combat ranges and i have in my mind very few wargames where units from diferent sides could be in the same hex.


Ooo thanks for the pics Strela, a little question... the ? represent an enemy unit or a defensive work??? and if we talk about an enemy unit... what you need to spot it with out recon spotting???.

Cant wait, these 2 weeks are going to be tooooooo long hehehe.

[Strela]

Ooo thanks for the pics Strela, a little question... the ? represent an enemy unit or a defensive work??? and if we talk about an enemy unit... what you need to spot it with out recon spotting???.

Cant wait, these 2 weeks are going to be tooooooo long hehehe.

The ? mark(s) represents suspected enemy position. It could be anything - unit, bunker etc. These usually represent where the fighting stopped the previous day or overnight recon has deduced something might be there.

It is essentially the 'intelligence' of where enemy troops are suspected to be. Currently the bulk of scenarios only have these in for the defender as the attacker is usually mobile (attacking!) from the start of the scenario. The ? mark defence line gives the attacking player enough clues to allow him to use recon aircraft and recon spotting as well as preparatory artillery strikes. Importantly it is a good indicator of where not to drive up to in travel mode.

These have mainly been used near the front line, but in some cases where history reports some of the rear area forces, ? marks have been put there also. If you move into the hex with one, it will either be empty (and the ? mark disappears) or occupied and the hex needs to be assaulted. Once cleared the ? mark disappears.


Here is an example in a scenario;





David

[Xaver]

Thanks Strela, i dont know why i miss the ? mission as "frontline" reminder

Maybe now when i see a map with more ?... i feel it a little... inconspicuous over forest hexes??? well, if is like in PzC mod it could be easy... i am searching something and these are good options



There are a lot of symbols i can use and maybe copy paste over minefields Jison mine symbol or a symbol with a skull and under it roman numbers to show minefield level

[GerryM]

It is a very interesting conundrum. Multilevel buildings also give LOS to units over intervening lower buildings. So units at the top could fire over these intervening buildings. But if an attacker is on the floor below them they should probably be restricted to combat against these adjacent units.

At this scale of platoons/companies can you really have multiple level buildings? Or do you handle it with some form of abstraction?

Gerry

I think only the SqB or PzB system could be used for a title such as Stalingrad. If you want room to room fighting you need to go to SqB's or a scale below for it to work. PzB's with its platoon basis is about the limit for detailed city fighting.

The other changes that PzB (or any other game) would need to handle is the impact of multilevel buildings as well as the sewers. These were factors that strongly influenced the control (or lack) of any area. As pointed out, 250 meter hexes are more like city blocks and determining ownership in three dimensions could be difficult. Another consideration is that the map would have to be custom built with a much wider range of building types that could be manually placed in the configurations required. All cities are well mapped and players fighting in Berlin or Stalingrad would want to play on an accurate facsimile of that map.

Now that said, if these technical issues could be solved you could have a brilliant platoon/company simulation of city fighting. I am imagining opposing forces coexisting in the same hex if they are on different height levels, only assaulting if at the same level.

Another alternative is to change the hex size and stacking limits so more detailed map can be done and only say platoons can be in a particular hex. The game system is flexible enough to do it.


DON'T get me thinking about another project...!

David

[Xaver]

I dont say use multilevel in urban is bad but is very hard to do... i even have my doubts about the engine dealing with 2 units from diferent sides in same hex to add an elevation factor.

I am happy if they made urban fight more "close" and a little more automatic... you know, send cannon fodder to the urban inferno and retreat empty units to send fresh meat

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I think only the SqB or PzB system could be used for a title such as Stalingrad. If you want room to room fighting you need to go to SqB's or a scale below for it to work. PzB's with its platoon basis is about the limit for detailed city fighting.

The other changes that PzB (or any other game) would need to handle is the impact of multilevel buildings as well as the sewers. These were factors that strongly influenced the control (or lack) of any area. As pointed out, 250 meter hexes are more like city blocks and determining ownership in three dimensions could be difficult. Another consideration is that the map would have to be custom built with a much wider range of building types that could be manually placed in the configurations required. All cities are well mapped and players fighting in Berlin or Stalingrad would want to play on an accurate facsimile of that map.

Now that said, if these technical issues could be solved you could have a brilliant platoon/company simulation of city fighting. I am imagining opposing forces coexisting in the same hex if they are on different height levels, only assaulting if at the same level.

Another alternative is to change the hex size and stacking limits so more detailed map can be done and only say platoons can be in a particular hex. The game system is flexible enough to do it.


DON'T get me thinking about another project...!

David
[/quote]

The compass, ? and movement arrows a bright red or arrows could even go with a canary yellow. The ?s definitely need to stand out. I also assume they would be in hexes where suspected sightings were, not just for the sake of forming a possible front line. If nothing was possibly spotted, no point in having a ? in that particular hex. I also assume that when there is a question mark, maybe a truck was spotted in town, but was it empty or fully loaded, don't know without better recon. It may also have just passed from behind one building to behind another.

As far as room to room fighting, it could only be done, IMO, in a series with individual men, which would be cool for scenarios from squad up to battalion size. Many options there for scenarios.

SBs could be made to handle multilevel buildings, but not really room to room. The squads could have a small square stick out to the side like pinned markers, but with the number of what level they are on, 1, 2, 3 or R for roof and S for sewer. Similar to the board game Squad Leader.

As for PBs, in order to get a more detailed feel for different areas, I don't think different sized hexes, but maybe more changing the scale of the hex or a combo of both. Rather than 250m per hex, make it something like 100-125 or 150.

[ComradeP]

I feel incredibly silly. Even though LSSAH's divisional colours have been posted near the beginning of this thread, I assumed the large scenario map posted could include LSSAH.

So, the map seems to display Das Reich and Totenkopf, though there are either some LSSAH Panzers around or some Panzer unit has a colour that, when the map is zoomed out, is very similar. The colour of the unit in the south also doesn't look as bright as on the earlier screenshot, but I assume it's the same division.

As it's not a hypothetical scenario, it's not Wiking unless it covers an operation during Rumyantsev west of Kharkov, which wouldn't fit on the map.

Das Reich and Totenkopf were only next to eachother at the start of the offensive, so even if this somehow represents a Soviet counterattack (on the 6th?) there's the problem that 30 kilometres down on the eastern part of the map we're already at or beyond Belgorod, so that can't be it either, also as the 167th would be moving up there after a few days anyway so it would need to be real early on.

It's been a long while since I've been this puzzled about the positions of units shown on a map: it isn't Prokhorovka as LSSAH would have to be at the center, a very early counterattack wouldn't fit due to the Soviets on the eastern part of the map otherwise being in Belgorod at this scale, and the Rumyantsev counterattack area is northwest of Kharkov and would require at least twice the map size on the Y axis for a map also covering Prokhorovka (not to mention that the SS attacked from the south there).

-

And a question: at this scale, how are HQ's that command the same units as their parent HQ represented (or higher HQ's commanding the same units as lower HQ's but with another HQ in between)? For example: 10th Panzer Brigade>39th Panzer Regiment>Panzer Abteilung 51 and 52. Are both the 39th Panzer Regiment and 10th Panzer Brigade active HQ's?

-

Some interesting (possibly not entirely correct) trivia: according to Wagener in his book Heeresgruppe Süd, the tally of incapacitated or killed German commanders for Zitadelle was: 7 divisional commanders, 38 regimental commanders and no less than 252 battalion commanders.