Panzer Battles - Kursk Version 1.01 released

[Bayes]

I am of the opposite viewpoint. The success of the engine/rule sets, developed over so long time, has made them among the best around. It is amazing how Squad Battles, Panzer Battles, and Panzer Campaigns capture the unique nature of each level of combat. High immersion, realistic flow of battles, lots of challenging decisions, sophisticated interplay between unit types, terrain and stance, dedicated robust mechanics that bring forward the different roles and tasks of a plentitude of unit types, to mention a few strengths.

The rule set of Chess does not get too old, does it?

Sorry Strela, no offense.
But i think the "Engine" of all John Tiller Games is quiet old and never got really updated.
What they did was just include more or other rules to fit the theater, size and time frame.

[Xaver]

The engine is ok but well, is far from be perfect... in PzC you notice less the limitations, for me PzB engine is well adapted out of the AT combat part and maybe how non heavy mortars lack of historical work (same with infantry guns, is much better dont use them and prevent lose points by enemy counterfire).

Maybe the problem is that engine from PzC was a great succes when they adapt it to FWW serie and you really notice it works very well but PzB even with new features needs a harder work to catch the esence of new combat scale for AT and rework (some way to made direct fire over armored units impact their mobility and a way to increase the letal area using the vehicle model not the stats like a bonus to score a kill after a good attack) a little infantry support weapons role (for me mortars and infantry guns need deal more fatigue).

CO2 for me is more CO1.5 is a good deal if you dont buy it in Matrix... for me after buy it some months ago is pay again the same for the same game with improvements that for me dont cost 50 dolars... and with euro exchange is even worst than when i buy it first time.

[Strela]

Ok - so returning to this thread after smacking Wiggum (just buy the game, man!)

Let me tackle a few of these comments & suggestions;


The Game Engine - Part One

It is what it is. In sales you're always told to sell what you've got - not next years model. There is a pretty even divide between players that like the 'Tiller' system as is and other that want something more 'modern'. War games for whatever reason have always been quirky when it comes to interface and individual designers even more so - anyone play Grigsby?! Now the good news is that the move into mobile has meant a range of new tools have become available. I know John has moved across to new compilers etc that allows him to generate code for a range of operating systems quickly. This will allow new interface features to become available over time. One example is zoom. Currently we have to build counter sets for each zoom level which is both time consuming and hard (daunting is a real good word when applied to PzB 2). John has indicated that we will see 'fluid zoom' based on the tablet experience where you can pinch to zoom or expand at will (probably using the mouse wheel on your mouse or touch with Win 8/10 and an appropriate monitor), no idea when, so don't quote me, but you can imagine the difference just this one feature might make.


The Game Engine - Part Two

The Tiller engine is ultra configurable. The parameter file has so many settings that can be tweaked to get a completely different game with the flick of a few switches. This is both awesome and daunting for a designer. It takes time to work out what gives you the appropriate feel for a title and that can only happen through trial and error. A lot of this is only revealed by play testing and in some cases means starting over when a parameter is changed. There are some parameter values that can by themselves impact the whole game. Two examples are the new hard fire mod and the 'old' Infantry strength effectiveness, these will single handed change the values of both hard and soft attacks. Add to that different Combat high/low values as well as stacking and you have a different system. Ed Williams and I have discussed a lot of the values used and you won't be surprised to know that many of these align to Panzer Campaigns. Now is that right or wrong - maybe, but we found they gave the most plausible loss rates over time. The original team that was working on PzB 2 (when it was PzB 1) were struggling with excessive casualties and just couldn't get a combination to work - we tried PzC's as a base for Kursk and things just seemed to fall into place. The fact that there is this level of configuration is the whole reason why there has been little change to the engine and the ability for it to simulate so many different periods and situations. Does this mean that PzB is just a mini PzC? The answer is no - but with all our units using Ed's McNamara database, its not surprising similar parameters are needed to get the expected results. The bottom line is, YOU can tweak these all to your hearts content to get a feel for the game you want to play - all the levers are there to try.


Mortars & Infantry Guns

You want more fatigue? Increase the soft values for these units. We could get a code change, but then someone would quote that we had the 'kill' ratio incorrect. For mortars in particular we started to allow these to combine to get enough firepower out of them, this was more problematic with infantry guns as there were only a few pieces per regiment. These guns were originally able to fire indirectly but this was changed once it was obvious that it created a huge artillery dialog and their usual doctrine was to be used
in a direct support role. So you want to make them more effective, just change their soft attack values. Are the factors wrong in the current iteration of the game? Let's consider again, could three mortars or two infantry guns effectively suppress a platoon of 30 men for half an hour? These are the questions that needed to be answered when making changes like this.


Rush to contact

We are having a vigorous debate of the merits or otherwise of some of the suggestions regarding short engagement ranges. There are some big positives and negatives if we impact mobility due to fire. Be assured though that it is being looked at and any solution will take into account that we are simulating a 30 minute time period, not 5 minutes.


AT/Tank combat

I'm continuing to look at this area but like 'Game Engine - Part Two' this is an interplay of a range of different parameters & factors. For example, if you want to kill more tanks at 1,000 meters, reduce the range effect below the current 1.5. This will favour the longer range weapon systems such as 88's. You want to increase the overall armour casualties? Up the hard fire modifier above the current 1.0 and see what happens. All of this can be done today if you want it. To date we have been more holistic and looked at casualties over the course of a scenario rather than the individual results of each shot/engagement. This has been important from a scenario balance and plausibility perspective, but inevitably results in people seeing there own version of reality. Finally, as mentioned in a prior post AT/tank combat is not the focus of this series but rather as Bayes correctly says a 'sophisticated interplay between unit types'. You have to look at this game with a slightly larger prism where each combat arm is necessary to be successful.


Have we as designers got it all perfect? Absolutely not. I'd be ecstatic if people started trying some different parameters and reported their results back, you'd be surprised the variation that can be created and if it ended up with an 'improved' simulation of reality it would be considered for future use.


David

[ComradeP]

I think the effect of the significantly greater view ranges on the perception of how the mechanics do or don't work might be underestimated.

Simply put: Compared to PzC, view ranges are huge. This has a direct effect on a number of features, such as how likely Fixed units are to be spotted which in turn encourages the player to pick a different approach path that won't release as many units, on the effectiveness of artillery, on weapon ranges and on the ability of one side to move in or out of contact without taking significant damage.

To emphasize that last point, an example: In PzC, you would in the vast majority of cases only attract opportunity fire if you moved adjacent to an enemy unit, for the simple reason that most unit types have a range of 1. To do that same thing, move a kilometre to get into direct contact with an enemy unit, in PB you need to cross 4 hexes. On each of those moves, your boys might take opportunity fire. That's also why the current not too high number of opportunity fire actions isn't bad in all cases.

For a division, everybody is usually a spotter for all divisional, corps and army assets aside from battalion and regimental mortars, which can only fire on targets supported by men belonging to their battalion or regiment. As artillery limits are still generous in my opinion due to there being no difference between the kind of artillery fire you call in (most or all of the Katyusha's in an army firing at a single hex is as possible as calling in fire from some battalion mortars), this can lead to "double whammy" situations where your assault stack that didn't make its attack gets hammered (which is fine - for a turn) or your retreating men keep taking significant losses as something spots them as they move back.

More opportunity fire for gun and vehicle units at what in game terms is range S is still something I'd like to try as a possible solution to the relative ineffectiveness of some unit types currently.

If you're the side with units that quickly lose combat effectiveness or are likely to be disrupted and facing enemy units with excellent soft attack values, this means you're likely to suffer when you move around. The chance of moving out of spotting range of an enemy unit is also small in most cases. In practice, this means the Soviets suffer badly when not in bunkers in a way that they wouldn't in PzC as there both the more limited engagement ranges and the more limited spotting ranges would save them from getting mauled when moving around on their turn.

The difference between not being targeted by a German company when moving around or being hit is fairly significant: the Germans tend to inflict around 10 losses per shot at range 1-2 for units with 120-144 men. This is why infantry guns and mortars not being too effective isn't bad in all cases. However, there are cases where one side can mass troops and advance upon an enemy line where support weapons being more effective would help. For example, the German move to increase support weapon numbers to counter lower infantry strength would within the current system be less effective than it was in real life, as staying - and killing power is primarily dictated by infantry strength.

As this is a game, and we're not actually moving through the fields of southwestern Russia ourselves, we are used to launching attacks that in real life would be suicidal or at the least very costly without flinching. As we have a feeling for how things work in the game, those attacks might work within the confines of the system.

We're also able to launch far more efficient attacks than our historical counterparts, as we have full information on the state and location of our own forces and either full (if you've played the scenario before) or still fairly detailed information on the state and location of the enemy forces.

That last point is particularly relevant in scenarios where, historically, one side made serious mistakes with the deployment of his units, which we don't have to repeat, like in the July 8th Voronezh Front scenario (although player impact is still limited there through the release order for Fixed mobile formations) or Ozerovskii, where you could theoretically attempt to squash the SS between the hammer and the anvil through a coordinated attack by both Tank Corps. It will be very interesting to see how the Ozerovskii games go in the tournament, but I find it unlikely that the SS will move through the Soviet lines with the same relative ease as they seem to have done historically, comparing their tank strengths on the 6th and 7th. Obviously, the German player has a similar advantage on the western flank where poor cooperation seems to have done more to slow the Germans than the Soviet resistance on some days.

Being able to get up close and personal without taking too much opportunity fire is primarily a problem for the side that relies on quality over quantity or which has less protected, but (fairly) well armed vehicles like the Germans. When you have a vehicle with a defence rating of 3, like the Marder, it's a problem that the Soviets can rush you in such a way that you can't use the Marder in its historical role (medium to long range sniping, using the advantages of better optics, a far better view range to begin with due to being open topped and a longer ranged gun than the T-34/76).

The T-34/76 has both a gun that has a better hard attack values than the defence values of the majority of enemy vehicles, and a higher defence value than the majority of enemy tanks (which are still Panzer IIIm's). To counter that, the Germans have an edge in quality, but as the Soviets don't necessarily suffer from mediocre to poor coordination and don't have to attack one brigade at a time in situations where they historically did so, the sheer numbers of T-34's can cause problems.

Those problems are then amplified by the low casualty rates per firing action for vehicles and guns also favouring the side with the most units (as that side can fire more often) in situations where the vehicles of both side have a realistic chance of knocking out a vehicle of the other side.

As to assaults, both sides using the same stacking limits can also cause problems in PzC, but generally speaking the attacker can achieve local numerical superiority or is able to disrupt the defender through artillery fire. In Panzer Battles, with the Soviets in bunkers, disrupting the defenders through artillery fire is unlikely, and both sides using the same stacking limit might not be so much of a problem in situations where your men don't have heavy weapons or vehicle support if it were not possible to use the limits of the system by stacking several units in a hex, all of which need to be disrupted before you can move in. The Soviets generally have some small MG or AT Rifle units to spare so they might not even go over the 50% of the stacking limit which would increase their casualties.

This situation can happen in PzC/FWWC too, obviously, as it's the same system (in an EP'14 game against myself, the Russians won after their small HQ unit saved a disrupted stack of battalions from moving out of an objective hex several turns in a row) but it feels less common, also because you often have fewer units per hex.

[Xaver]

Around the light-medium mortar/infantry gun my point is that in 30 minutes even 2 mortars can send enough HE over enemy positions to mantein them under presure... of course in good positions the impact is lower and even lower over troops with combat experience but when you read about mortars their impact is more in the morale area and how prevent units recover, they can score kills but they do more in the non physical area.

Infantry guns are similar to mortars here, they force enemy have the heads down and help to deal with strong points... maybe like mortars i feel they are excesive inefective because provide very few usefull rounds and lose them is easy.

For me if you have light-medium mortars and infantry guns as independent units they need be on battlefield to made enemy life harder... maybe add the solo shot like regular arty as optional rule BUT with practically 100% chance to deal at least fatigue... i think that 2 mortars with this rule have 50% chance to deal fatigue, 4 75% and the full mortar unit 100% chance to deal fatigue... with this you can use light/med mortars and guns as supporters in attacks and defense (when i talk about this i refer to units in good defensive positions not in open, here is possible socore some kills).

The problem with tanks is that as Comradep says germans have good ambush vehicles to engage at range enemy tanks with no danger for them BUT is not posible because at range the efficiency is low and when enemy close range they fall easy, other point is that for me this TD vehicles need a special rule to increase their "ninja" value, same with AT guns, something like when this units are in non open terrain they can do 1-2 attacks and stay unspoted (in players turn) and in enemy turns maybe 2-3 opportunity fire before be spoted... at least made that this ambush classes can do their job VS enemy tanks, now is strange see how tanks rushing with no infantry support can detect them easy and ruin the long range combat.

Is a question of years, more years and more titles are going to improve the engine... sure.

Maybe release soon PzB2 help it because with west title we can add another point of view in the AT role... we can see in german infantry units better AT weapons like Panzerfaust (organic in the infantry hard attack value) and Panzershcreck (maybe as separate unit??? or inside HA value with range 1) and with tanks fighting at closer range in a terrain with better terrain where cut range ASAP has less impact compared with the open terrain in Kursk.

PD: i know i am like a pimple in the ass but when i like something i enter in Mr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde mode... love and hate in the same body

[Dog Soldier]

To all current and future blitz members.

Something I want to point out as an officer at the blitz is to remind everyone that while Strela is correct that one can modify aspects of the Panzer Battles games to their own liking, doing so in PBEM play is not allowed under blitz club rules.

You are always welcome to make these types of modifications to your game to test some game aspect or just change the feel of the game when playing the AI. I suggest you do so in a separate directory with a copy of the game. That way you will not accidentally affect any PBEM games you have under club rules.

Making these changes in PBEM play is considered cheating unless both sides agree before starting a game and use the same files. In tournament play, the tournament master has the say in what modifications (if any) are allowed.

Anyone caught cheating is subject to immediate and permanent ejection from the club.

Cheating is rare. Many of our existing members already know what I have said in this post. Consider this a public service announcement for anyone new to the club or reading this thread in the future, so they do not get the wrong ideas.
We have an excellent community of members. And for that reason, to maintain the community integrity for our members, it will not be tolerated.

Dog Soldier

[Strela]

Work continues on....

Here is the proposed new Battalion commanders for the Russians & Russian Guards units.


100%






200%






These will be available soon....


David

[Compass Rose]

Very Nice!

[Xaver]

Great, i like specially the 2/6 commander, sexy sexy