HPS PzC II

[USS Wyoming]

Excellent observations by Dog Soldier.

[dgk196]

Hello...

Some interesting feedback, eh? I really like the idea of an approximation as to the number of 'units' remaining in an organization. The 1x or 1xx or 1xx type of display would, I think, be an improvement over the current supplied data. At least it could be an option that could be selected for the game being played.

While we are at it, about options... I think, that it would be a good idea to be able to change the options selected for a game while the game is in progress. Of course, for 'safety sake', the fact that an option had been changed should be flagged during the subsequent players turn!

As to 'surrender', I think it might be a good option too! I mean currently, you either spend the time to 'hunt' down the remainder of units or ignore them. But, as far as the remaining forces of a unit being a viable organization, able to conduct operations, there could be a limit as to how long that is in effect. Setting the level at which the 'surrender' takes place would allow the event to take place in a manner that could be more realistic as regards certain forces that where encountered in the field!? Once the 'surrender level' is reached a 'check' as to if it surrenders could be made according to the players preference. Say every turn or once a day, or the proximity of enemy units, adjacent, assaulting or such situations. Other things like being in communication with an HQ could all be in effect there.

Left behind forces of a unit could pose a headache for security of surrounding enemy units to be sure. But, if the number of the reduced, surrounded units is so small in comparison to the enemy units then maybe a surrender would be in order. Less than 10 men remaining from a company or battalion would have relatively no discernable impact on an enemy company or battalion, would it? A nuisance to be sure but no real threat to the 'intact' units ability to conduct operations.

Thanks for participating in the discussion.

Dennis

[Dog Soldier]

Left behind forces of a unit could pose a headache for security of surrounding enemy units to be sure. But, if the number of the reduced, surrounded units is so small in comparison to the enemy units then maybe a surrender would be in order. Less than 10 men remaining from a company or battalion would have relatively no discernable impact on an enemy company or battalion, would it? A nuisance to be sure but no real threat to the 'intact' units ability to conduct operations.

I think you are missing the point. Let me try to explain it again. One does not know there were only ten men left in the hex until the hex was swept again (assault) to find out how many were still there. The phasing player just knows there is enemy activity in the area represented by a counter in a hex. The resulting assault result is a report that the ten enemy men are lost. It does not have to literally mean they fought to the death. One can read it that some of those guys gave up when discovered, others were not given the chance to surrender....

What is lost to the attacking player is the time it takes to sweep an area and be sure it is secure. The simulation in PzC does a good job of this.

Panzer Battles takes this one step further. The enemy unit could remain hidden in an advancing player's rear area. You would not know it was there if you do not pay any attention to rear area security (recon & sweeping).

Dog Soldier

[USS Wyoming]

I would urge Dennis to read Panzer Operation by Erhard Raus (translated by Steven Newton.) Through this book, you get an excellent operational tutorial, although the German formations were so understrength at times that operations at the division level were actually tactical. This especially true when you consider that an armor company might only have a platoon's worth of tanks.

It was very difficult to root out the Russian defenders even after the Russian formations had become operationally ineffective. I have never been sure if the same was true of German units. It might have been once the Germans were pushed back into Germany itself because they would have been truly desperate by that time.

I do not believe that it would be historic for such ravaged formations to be able to exert any ZOC. I've read many memoirs on East front combat and units could tell when defenders were near collapse. The rate of defensive fire would be insufficient to prevent units from bypassing the defenders.

I suggest that when a unit's effectiveness has sufficiently diminished, but hasn't broken, that its ability to exert ZOC in adjacent hexes also diminishes. Perhaps it has to "pass" a ZOC check (using morale of fatigue, maybe), to see if it still can exert that control? we all know a broken unit has no ZOC, but this hybrid unit status could indicate that while it has lost its ability to exert ZOC, it still can return defensive fire and may remain a danger if left entirely bypassed. For example, a unit that occupies a road hex that has lost its ability to exert ZOC therefore allowing units to pass on either side of it, can still pose a threat to supply.

[Aolain]

This might have been already mentioned on this very interesting thead:

The ability to enter on your map graphical control measures. Things like unit boundaries, phase lines, objectives etc.

For me anyway, this would greatly enhance my gaming experience.

[dgk196]

Hello....

Well, I don't know if I'm 'missing the point' or not. Remember this is a post of what you would like to see in PzC II. What it could or should have. I take your points, they certainly are relevant to the game, to be sure.
I think that maybe such things as surrender could be considered and incorporated into the game, even if its set as an optional characteristic.

With WWII covering so many events there are bound to be examples that cover the whole spectrum of possible events. So, such things as 'holding out to the last man' or 'retreating' even before encountering the enemy on the field of battle had happened. I'm just saying that I think it could add some realistic aspects and pose some types of situations to be resolved through extraordinary means. Couldn't it?

Operational Areas. Man am I with you on that one. With, at times, limited abilities to communicate among your own troops, you might have to plan things out. Such as, where units are to be... where they are to go, what they are do when they get there, or do to get there. Almost none of these things need to be done in most games. I definitely would like to see such a system imposed in a game. I mean we are talking WWII here. 'Radio's', at times, phone-lines (to be cut), signal flares, message runners... visual observation and so on. No... cell-phone.... geo-synchronized... computer integrated data... backed up by satellite images situations.

At some level, I'd like to see operational area limits... plans for units operating in those areas and so on! Preplanned artillery activities to be coordinated with follow up attacks according to a plan / time table and so on, sometimes it can really be a challenge to get 'the cats to march in the parade'! That would really be a great option to be sure. I'd just like the game to feel less like a 'first person shooter game', there's just too much of that feel to it for me.

Dennis

[Xaver]

For me this needs be touched in a new PDT value and use it as you need in diferent titles... for example if in future we see a Pacific title (for PzC or PzB scale) engine needs some changes apart fanatical nations rule (improve it).

I want open a new thread to talk about Pacific but first i want post here some ideas because is possible use them in other PzC titles to.

1-Counterattack, this could be a PDT value controled by % it works like this, when an unit is push back by enemy assault IF the unit is not disrupted has a % to automatically counterattack assaulting the lost position the assault could have or not a bonus IF the pushed back unit is not over certain level of fatigue... the idea is if the unit is in good condition can counterattack with a % bonus because is attacking a well know position AND from the wrong side for enemy that take it and doesnt have time to prepare it.

2-Linked with 1 point for me fanatical nations needs an extra bonus in assault... they can assault in disrupted status, if they are under certain level of fatigue can do it with half penalization, if they are very fatigue with full negative effects, i think in 25% and 50% to assault value for example (if the unit is disrupted and has low fatigue 50%-25%=25% bonus in best sutuation and 25%-50%=-25% penalty in worst sitution.... apart the fatigue/terrain penalties of course)

The idea behind these 2 changes in engine is made Fanatical nations more dangerous even when you beat them because can counterattack and have a good situation and recover lose terrain AND if they dont have luck suffer more casualties by unprepared attacks like they do.

Apart this you can improve a lot agresive level in nations via PDT and you can avoid some situations where in real life certain nations wasted a lot of troops in useless counterattacks but they try them all the time.

What do you think about this???

I am really curious about posible future Pacific title... for PzC engine or even PzB engine because i really want see a Pacific title (now finally we have Peninsula war titles for Nap and i only miss PzC Berlin45 and the Pacific) and dont know what they can do here... a title like Salerno with diferent battles in a pack or something dedicated to a battle (Olimpic, the soviet assault over Korea, China battles... all big actions).

[USS Wyoming]

This might have been already mentioned on this very interesting thead:

The ability to enter on your map graphical control measures. Things like unit boundaries, phase lines, objectives etc.

For me anyway, this would greatly enhance my gaming experience.

Unless I am misunderstanding, we have some of these things already:

Objectives are clearly highlighted (if you want them to be).
Unit boundaries are represented by areas of ZOC.
I don't understand "phase lines"? Unless it is a reference to areas of operations for Corps or Armies? This is abstracted in the scenario design.

At some level, I'd like to see operational area limits... plans for units operating in those areas and so on! Preplanned artillery activities to be coordinated with follow up attacks according to a plan / time table and so on, sometimes it can really be a challenge to get 'the cats to march in the parade'! That would really be a great option to be sure. I'd just like the game to feel less like a 'first person shooter game', there's just too much of that feel to it for me

I don't consider PzC as having any similarities to a FPS. I have been playing an 80+ turn PBEM of Operation Fedricus as the Russians and it has been (or more accurately, is in the process of becoming mid-way through the scenario) an operational nightmare. That is what the designers intended and they have succeeded!

[Buccaneer]

Operational Areas. Man am I with you on that one. With, at times, limited abilities to communicate among your own troops, you might have to plan things out. Such as, where units are to be... where they are to go, what they are do when they get there, or do to get there. Almost none of these things need to be done in most games. I definitely would like to see such a system imposed in a game. I mean we are talking WWII here. 'Radio's', at times, phone-lines (to be cut), signal flares, message runners... visual observation and so on. No... cell-phone.... geo-synchronized... computer integrated data... backed up by satellite images situations.

This is a problem with most war games ... board games included. You, as the player, are omniscient. That's not really going to change. You have instant communications, instant and accurate intel, can change your plan in an instant, and have the new plan out to your troops in the next. The only games I've seen handle this well is "Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm" and the "Command Ops" series. They do not resolve the omniscience problem ... but they do add command delays and limited orders. Whether or not this makes things more "realistic" or not is up for debate. It does make for different tactical choices.

I do disagree with your point that no planning needs to be done in the Pzc games. I find it to be the opposite ... fail to plan and you can plan to fail ... especially in the larger scenarios. The smaller the scenario, the more limited your options and the more limited the choices that are necessary.

At some level, I'd like to see operational area limits... plans for units operating in those areas and so on! Preplanned artillery activities to be coordinated with follow up attacks according to a plan / time table and so on, sometimes it can really be a challenge to get 'the cats to march in the parade'! That would really be a great option to be sure. I'd just like the game to feel less like a 'first person shooter game', there's just too much of that feel to it for me.

Operational area limits are abstracted into the game already: Limited map size, units available, etc. Preplanned artillery and follow up attacks are also a limit of the turn based nature of these games. The Command Ops series does a nice job with that mechanic ... but it is a pause-able, real-time, game where that mechanic can be implemented. In a game where a turn lasts 2 hours, that mechanic is abstracted in how the player chooses to use the resources available each turn.

Now ... phase lines and operational areas in a planning overlay along with someplace to keep notes on my overall plan would be a nice convenience!

[dgk196]

Hello...

I like the 'counter-attack' concept. It takes place automatically? Or is it something that is done on the next players turn? Making a variable related to the PDT sure seems like a good idea.

Increased Fire Rate After doing some reading on artillery support I have an idea for a variation of 'artillery' fire. Seems that, at times, supporting artillery would increase their fire rate against a target at times. Either on the opening salvo's or on the final salvo. So, I thought why not in the game. The idea is to keep it 'simple' and have it work in a way that is common to all forces.

So, the basic idea is this... a unit may 'double its attack factor' for one attack. It may only make one attack in the turn, but at twice the attack factor. Then, it may not do this for two consecutive turns... and the turn after the increased attack it may not fire at all. After a one turn non-firing.. it may then resume its ability to attack. Its generic.. and if 'tied' to the PDF as regards 'frequency'... increased attack level... recuperation and so on, it can be 'fine tuned' to meet the needs of the units attempting this. Would this modified attack apply to attacks with anti-tank guns, infantry units and other types of attacks? Or is it, or should it, be related to 'artillery' only?

Dennis