HPS PzC II

[dgk196]

Hello...

Features or Functions that could or should be made optional.

The 'start' of a list of features or functions that could be made optional at the start of a scenario. At a minimum I'd like to see these either be totally optional as to their operation in the game. Or, (baking it into the game by inclusion in the scenario) being able to set the percentage of the effect ( 0% through 100%) in the game.

Special Disruption Rules

There are two instances of these in the manual. The first being when firing 'indirectly' at a 'Hard Target'. The second being 'towed anti-tank guns' or 'heavy AA guns' firing at a 'hard vehicle'.

I would definitely like to disable either, or both, of these functions from being in effect in the game. To me these are, to some degree, the opposite of what should happen in these circumstances. And as such I'd like to be able to 'turn off' these effects.

Dennis

[USS Wyoming]

I'm not familiar enough with special disrupting rules to comment on it. What specific effect do these rules have that you would like to be able to modify and the reason for it?

As to the earlier post on improved defense, I think the improved defensive position are a terrain modifier so the impact applies to all units in the hex even if the improved position was created by a company sized unit.

Would game play be improved by limiting the defensive bonuses to certain units in the hex or would it have a minimal impact, yet require extensive programming changes? I think we have to always remember the operational scale unless you want to create a tactical game at operational level.

if an infantry company dug in and created the improved position, it would seem reasonable that an AA or AT unit moving into the hex wouldn't find the infantry's dug-in positions to be entirely compatible with their 75mm AT guns. What would be the remedy? I suppose the entrenching company could be awarded the maximum bonus, while the others receive less, but lets suppose the other units who enter the hex immediately begin improving the positions. From what I've read, that is likely.

[dgk196]

Hello....

Assuming that I have the latest and greatest 'manual', this is what I found...

Special Disruption Rules

"When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard vehicles or units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption effect is twice that of normal. For hard vehicles, this is the effect of causing them to 'button up' and thus have reduced effectiveness. For hard fortifications, this is a result of the 'pounding' that results on the fortifications and the disruptive effect this has on the occupants."

So, say you are in your tank... incoming artillery rounds... you 'button up'. Why? To reduce or negate the effects of the attack on you as a result of the fire directed at you. 'Buttoning up' doesn't increase the effect of the attack it reduces it. Increasing the effects of Disruption by a factor of X2 is the opposite of the effect. I could see a reduction in effectiveness as a result of 'buttoning up', but not a factor of x2. Maybe a reduction by some percentage of effectiveness of the unit that is under attack, say -5 or -10 or some such thing. Barring that being available to set the level then I would like to not have it factored in at all... to me its the reverse of what occurs and out of proportion to the event. The same sort of effect for 'hard fortifications' is more or less the same, only different. The whole idea of the 'hard fortification', or any such thing, is to reduced the effect of enemy attacks while allowing you to carry on your operations. If the 'attack' is sufficiently strong to cause disruption of the occupants then that's what it should reflect. Not some additional effect to simulate 'something'.

"When towed anti-tank guns or towed heavy AA guns fire on a hard vehicle, then the disruption effect is twice that of normal. This effect is based on the fact that the guns are deployed in fixed locations and as result have increased accuracy as opposed to mobile guns which are firing on the move."

I get the idea that towed guns have to deploy to fire. Why does the 'accuracy' of the fixed guns increase because they are 'deployed', as opposed to tanks which have stopped to fire? Both are 'stationary' when firing. There where a few vehicles that employed gyro-stabilized systems, some Sherman and the 'Panther II' (Panther F) where to have a similar system. The majority of 'mobile guns' had to stop to fire their gun, pretty much a common practice as far as I can tell. Some vehicles had attributes, mostly because of the suspension (?), that allowed firing while moving slowly. But even still, most accounts have the tanks stopping to fire, unless its extremely close range! The 'firing tables' that I have more or less, and there are always exceptions of course, indicate the same sort of results for guns that are used in anti-tank roles or mounted in tanks. Range differences seem to be related to the limitations of the mount, if there are any differences at all. So, either assign a reduction of effectiveness of the 'firing unit' by some percentage, as mentioned before, or eliminate the 'effect' altogether. Once again, to me the cause and effect of this is reversed.

Improved Positions. In the case of say a Russian infantry unit, supposedly there where 'standing orders' that if the unit was stationary for a given amount of time, it falls within the one or two hour turns of the game, then they where to begin 'digging in', without being ordered to do so. They dug what the Germans called 'Russian holes'. A simple 'pit' that would allow the torso to be below ground-level. Shallow angular 'dig' and the dirt piled up in 'front' of the position, the legs of the soldier where not in the pit when laying in the 'hole'. This is the most minimal 'improved position' that I required for 'earthworks' and took the least amount of time. I can't see anyway that a gun or vehicle deploying in the same area (hex in our case) would derive any benefit from such an improved position. I can't imagine a company or battalion of T-34's parked next to something of this nature getting any benefit from it at all.

That's why I would like to see some level of specificity as regards the 'class' of the earthworks and the size of the units it is meant to accommodate. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope that I've given you a better explanation as to what I'd like to see regarding these factors.

Dennis

[dgk196]

Hello...

This would probably be a very big addition, but one that could be interesting. 'Pacific PanzerCampaign' (PacificCampaign ?)!
Yep, Guadalcanal, Leyte, The Solomon's, Operation Olympic, India, Burma... need I say more?

Dennis

[USS Wyoming]

I think a Pacific version would be a sweet addition. I haven't played Normandy '44, but I presume they have already modeled amphib operations and naval artillery support. I wonder if the lack of serious tank formations would diminish its appeal? I do believe it would have to incorporate some naval maneuvering because of the role it plays in those campaigns. it would not be enough to leave unmolested naval units to support the invasion forces.

[dgk196]

Hello...

Yes, there are no 'Kursk' like conflicts (as regards tanks) in the 'Pacific Theater' that I know of... nothing close. But, at least for the allies, routine uses of tanks in formations, mostly 'support'? A 'combined arms' situation for the most part.

This is where I make my pitch for the inclusion of a 'full map editor'. The number of 'battles' that are available to make scenario's out of is staggering, because potential area of conflicts must span about half the globe. And as such, because there are so many, there will be people that play the games that will have their preferences that cover the entire area. In a word, a very BIG project!

So, since it would be almost impossible to bring out all of the potential individual 'Pacific Campaign' games in a reasonable amount of time, why not one? A 'game' that includes a full map editor would allow the 'community' to do the work of developing the scenario's in the different theaters of the Pacific area of conflict. Everything from India and Burma to Guadalcanal and Midway and everything in between. IL2-1946 comes to mind. It has become an 'open' simulator and is more popular today then when it was first released. It, IL2 1946, can be modded by individuals rather than the company that made it. I don't think 'Pacific Campaign' needs to go just that far, but just short of it. A full map editor, applicable not just to 'Pacific Campaign' but also the PzC series also, would shift the 'responsibility' over to the 'community' for development of the series.

Less work to be done by the developers and more by the 'community'. This would allow the developers to concentrate on resolving 'glitches' and 'new features' (functionality) and less time on the extent (individual battles) of the coverage for the game. I'm sure that given a 'full map editor' and the existing unit and OOB editor the community would go into high gear and make the 'Pacific Campaign' a huge success overnight!

Dennis

[Xaver]

Well, Pacific is on JT future (see PzC user manual Fanatical nations) and is possible cover it in PzB and PzC scale... lets see if we have a "ninja" release in a near future (before machines rise and take control hehehe).

Lack of armor is not a problem, see WWI serie, and is refreshing play mainly with infantry and a new nation with it own special features.

[dgk196]

Hello...

Well that's good news... a Pacific Campaigns game! Lots of potential there.

While playing a Campaign Series game we noticed a feature that we think would be good in the PzC game.
That is the on map 'range rings', as we call them. Those that mark the range against armored targets (red range) and soft targets (blue range). Not critical to the game, but a very good addition.

Limited information. Would it be feasible to limit the information available to the opponent when selecting a hex, even though the unit(s) in the hex have been spotted? That is the units being displayed in the unit box(?) that details the type of unit(s), specifically, that are in the hex. Instead of detailed information, like the type of tank or so on, to a generic symbol. Replace it with a generic tactical symbol for a tank. This would reduce the 'perfect' information that is available at the moment. Possibly, as an option, a misreporting of information would be good to.

Dennis

[Fonebone]

For the future of PzC, I'd be happy with some very simple changes. I've played Tunisia and Sicily and the following would have improved the experience quite a bit:

1) Broken/Disrupted units hopelessly trapped behind enemy lines should surrender/dissolve. Maybe a check could be made once a day against the Local Supply Value or something.

2) Very small units should also dissolve, say under 10 men.

3) I'd like to see a Fog of War setting that exposes everything about a unit except its location. It may not be realistic, but I like to see the game engine at work -- fatigue, morale, etc.
3A) At the very least, I'd like to have a clearer picture of the number of an enemy unit. As in the Napoleon game, XX might read 1X, and XXX might be 6XX. There could still be inexact estimates within limits, but not knowing whether you face 100 or 999 men is too extreme for my tastes.

[Dog Soldier]

For the future of PzC, I'd be happy with some very simple changes. I've played Tunisia and Sicily and the following would have improved the experience quite a bit:

1) Broken/Disrupted units hopelessly trapped behind enemy lines should surrender/dissolve. Maybe a check could be made once a day against the Local Supply Value or something.

German garrisons along the channel coast in France were bypassed and left behind for a long time. Dunkirk surrendered in May 1945 as part of the general German surrender.

2) Very small units should also dissolve, say under 10 men.

Never heard of snipers needing to be cleared from an area?

3) I'd like to see a Fog of War setting that exposes everything about a unit except its location. It may not be realistic, but I like to see the game engine at work -- fatigue, morale, etc.
3A) At the very least, I'd like to have a clearer picture of the number of an enemy unit. As in the Napoleon game, XX might read 1X, and XXX might be 6XX. There could still be inexact estimates within limits, but not knowing whether you face 100 or 999 men is too extreme for my tastes.

First one is not FOW.
Second idea would decrease FOW more than it already is. One can tell from contact if a unit is 9XX or 1XX with enough game experience by judging how the unit reacts to probes. FOW in PzC is pretty thin already as it is. Ideas to make FOW more 'foggy' have been kicked around. Unfortunately creating FOW without appearing to be a bug is much more difficult.

Dog Soldier