New Panzer Campaigns Features & call for Manuals Updates

[Green]

I believe a different variation of the disruption movement was implemented for PzC. Units no longer lose movement points when disrupted, similar to FWWC, but they aren't penalized for moving toward enemy units.

Rick

That is my understanding too.

So the manual needs to be corrected, unless the change is going to implemented with the next updates.

Makes me think that it would be helpful if changes to the manual were highlighted in some way so that players do not need to re-read the whole document to find anything new. I believe 'living manuals' often adopt this approach.

[Xerxes77]

Hi everyone!
I'm a newbie to the PzC series and have only recently discovered this forum. Currently I'm working on wrapping my head around the main loop of the games and progressively adding more details and nuance as I get more confident.

It can all get a bit overwhelming, so I salute any effort towards improving the manuals, particularly more information (or examples) about the formula used to arrive at the numbers shown on the combat results window (as opposed to on-map results), which I find difficult to parse, or the mind-bending (for me) mechanics described in the Combined Arms Penalty section. I understand this is a very long-standing series, so these may have been clarified many times over the years!

Anyway, I believe I have spotted a couple of errors in the user manual which at first caused me a great deal of confusion until it dawned on me that they might be just that--errors! I'm referencing the user Core Manual linked to in the Updates section on the JTS website.

On page 65, at the end of the "Unit Modifiers" section it reads:
"Suppose that the attackers consist of the same type of units, an A Quality unit at Medium Fatigue and a C Quality unit at No Fatigue. Again, the unit modifiers are 10% and –20%. The lowest unit modifier is –20% and this is used for the attackers."
*** I believe this should be "a C Quality unit at High Fatigue" ??

Page 99, under "Fatigue accumulation":
"Losses taken from fire and from defending in assault range randomly from 0 up to the factor times the loss value, in men equivalent. Fatigue taken from attacking in assault is double normal values."
*** I believe this should be "Fatigue taken from fire... ranges randomly" ??

Once again, thanks for your efforts in making things easier for us manual junkies!

[Strela]

Hi everyone!
I'm a newbie to the PzC series and have only recently discovered this forum. Currently I'm working on wrapping my head around the main loop of the games and progressively adding more details and nuance as I get more confident.

It can all get a bit overwhelming, so I salute any effort towards improving the manuals, particularly more information (or examples) about the formula used to arrive at the numbers shown on the combat results window (as opposed to on-map results), which I find difficult to parse, or the mind-bending (for me) mechanics described in the Combined Arms Penalty section. I understand this is a very long-standing series, so these may have been clarified many times over the years!

Anyway, I believe I have spotted a couple of errors in the user manual which at first caused me a great deal of confusion until it dawned on me that they might be just that--errors! I'm referencing the user Core Manual linked to in the Updates section on the JTS website.

On page 65, at the end of the "Unit Modifiers" section it reads:
"Suppose that the attackers consist of the same type of units, an A Quality unit at Medium Fatigue and a C Quality unit at No Fatigue. Again, the unit modifiers are 10% and –20%. The lowest unit modifier is –20% and this is used for the attackers."
*** I believe this should be "a C Quality unit at High Fatigue" ??

Page 99, under "Fatigue accumulation":
"Losses taken from fire and from defending in assault range randomly from 0 up to the factor times the loss value, in men equivalent. Fatigue taken from attacking in assault is double normal values."
*** I believe this should be "Fatigue taken from fire... ranges randomly" ??

Once again, thanks for your efforts in making things easier for us manual junkies!

I LOVE manual junkies. I could give you a fantastic unpaid job!! 

You are completely correct and the living document, continues to live...

David

[Xerxes77]

I LOVE manual junkies. I could give you a fantastic unpaid job!! 

You are completely correct and the living document, continues to live...

David

Lol, thank you David. Were I not between paid jobs at the moment, I would probably take up your offer.  

(In fact, I would consider a translation into my native language (Spanish), which is a huge barrier for newcomers).

I still remember eons ago buying the first Panzer General and scouring the manual for info on the actual calculations behind combat, only to find broad references to modifiers. I guess it was meant to be played intuitively, but for some reason I love knowing exactly what goes on under the hood. The PzC docs are very generous in this regard, it's the presentation that just need some polishing.

Charles

[unonimus]

On the 122nd page of the 2020 manual, units' loss recovery has examples of recovery of average of 4 men, for example. Does that mean units don't recover in an absolute fixed rate, but like fatigue recovery (like, between 0 and two times the modified recovery rate, i.e, between 0 and 8 for the aforementioned unit)? Because the wording implied that and I couldn't find a definite answer for that in the manual AND I had an unusually high recovery in a game of mine for one of my battalions (and I am sure that it doesn't have a replacement rate in the OOB), I couldn't be sure.

[Xerxes77]

On the 122nd page of the 2020 manual, units' loss recovery has examples of recovery of average of 4 men, for example. Does that mean units don't recover in an absolute fixed rate, but like fatigue recovery (like, between 0 and two times the modified recovery rate, i.e, between 0 and 8 for the aforementioned unit)? Because the wording implied that and I couldn't find a definite answer for that in the manual AND I had an unusually high recovery in a game of mine for one of my battalions (and I am sure that it doesn't have a replacement rate in the OOB), I couldn't be sure.

I haven't tested this in depth but I believe the mention of an average is there to allow for rounding, e.g. in the example sometimes you would recover 3 men and other times 5. Seeing as loss recovery is based on remaining men/vehicles, in the following turns the same unit would recover progressively less men, but the rate should remain fixed as defined in the parameter data.

[unonimus]

The exact wording is like this. There are other examples but those have fewer than 1 entity recovering:

Suppose that an infantry battalion of C Quality had suffered losses of 200 men out of a total strength of 600 and that the Unit Recovery for its side is 2%. When eligible, it will recover an average of 4 men per turn.


2 per cent of 200 is exactly 4, so why does it round? Is it an error, is it an error that is too hard to solve at this point or is it intended? It will, of course, recover fewer men on later turns, but is there a reason why it should round exactly 4 men?

[Xerxes77]

The exact wording is like this. There are other examples but those have fewer than 1 entity recovering:

Suppose that an infantry battalion of C Quality had suffered losses of 200 men out of a total strength of 600 and that the Unit Recovery for its side is 2%.  When eligible, it will recover an average of 4 men per turn.


2 per cent of 200 is exactly 4, so why does it round? Is it an error, is it an error that is too hard to solve at this point or is it intended? It will, of course, recover fewer men on later turns, but is there a reason why it should round exactly 4 men?

I was thinking that maybe the manual simply chose a bad example with whole numbers, but after running some tests you're right, there's something funky going on with loss recovery. I've seen some units recover twice the men they were supposed to according to the specified rate.

EDIT: I'm now leaning towards seeing the unit recovery rate as the *chance* each individual loss (i.e., each casualty) in the unit has of recovering when the unit is eligible for loss recovery. With that calculation, the numbers would fit the examples (especially the one for vehicles) and all the language about averages and recovery rates.