[Discussion] How to improve urban combat in PzC/MC

[Volcano Man]

As for attackers, they would use an advance by bounds alternating movement between the infantry and armor with the armor over watching each small advance rush by the infantry. At least that is how I see armor moving in an urban zone where resistance is expected. Forcing travel might make sense for the attackers if the enemy positions are unknown. If the enemy has already been in contact with the attacking infantry and the tanks are brought up for direct fire support, I would assume the tanks will try to find the best cover or angles to set up for their fire support.

Well, the problem is that a vehicle unit in PzC / MC etc can bring the full weight of its power (attack, defense, assault) to the fight in an urban environment (in these games). This is obviously not the case in real life and it matters not whether you are talking about operational level or tactical level; I spent countless hours at the armor branch's Fort Knox MOUT site where tank / infantry urban operations are (edit: were) practiced and honed, and even participated in much of the training myself when the now current US doctrine on armor in urban environments was being developed. It is pretty far fetched to think that an armor unit of any size would operate at its full potential in such places, simply because it is too restricted and you essentially have no benefit of terrain whatsoever. Forget the idea that tanks "hide" behind buildings and move down the street to shoot and back up, especially in a place where it is pretty much unknown who is in what building, and the fact that the enemy can come at you from three dimensions, including the subterranean level. The fact that the streets are the places where the vehicles are relegated to be ensures that they are always seen, heard, and limited to how many vehicles in said unit can be "presented" at one time.

Whether it be the tanks defending against infantry assault, or on the "attack" themselves with other tanks or infantry, the fact is they are extremely vulnerable and restricted in such environments to the point that they are only marginally effective. In such environments they exist only to support the infantry, not to operate alone or in the lead. This is contrary to what you can achieve in PzC and MC. It certainly must be true that tanks are marginally effective in such places or else, in the real world, tanks and vehicle units would prefer such places as their optimal fighting place, and would gravitate towards urban areas as places of sanctuary to project fire superiority outward. This IS what happens at the operational level in these games. And this IS what forcing them to be in T mode to sit in such hexes would reduce. There is no amount of justification and abstraction that can cover the fact that the armor (vehicles) in urban areas is essentially as good as it is in open terrain in terms of firepower, yet they are much more effective than armor in open terrain because they gain extremely high defensive benefits -- thus, they receive the best of both worlds (vehicles can prefer to sit in urban areas to be "better off" at using the full weight of its fire on enemy vehicles in the open). In short, it makes perfect sense to penalize vehicle units (both offensively and defensively) at the operational level, tactical level, or individual vehicle level, for operating in such places.

Still, my point is not to change anything per se, but I will defend the case and I would be lying if I said this is not the one aspect that (IMO) should improve. ;) However, my point was simply that there is no shortage of "good ideas", but what it all comes down to is simply taking it for what it is and, if there is no satisfaction in that, then you have to make a scenario that favors more to what you would like to see (within the limitations of the engine).