Do we have too much control over fire in PzC, what’s your opinion?

[James Ward]

A bir further thought, regarding disruption - I have always thought that having a specific state, either disrupted or not, is too black and white and hence why the defender is unable to hold as tough as historically, in many cases. What I would prefer is a disruption range, similar to fatigue, that impacts fire in some way - either it causes a chance of an impact on fire similar to disruption with the loss of half effectiveness or alternatively it reduces firepower effectiveness between full and half by the amount of disruption, and when in an assault as attacker or defender leads to a chance of "disrupting" for that assault.

So no specific disruption status, just a chance of it being implemented with the current disruption effects for each fire or assault, but only for that specific action that is being tested.

It would be recovered similar to fatigue - maybe the current fatigue could even be the measure for disruption status. And reach max disruption and the unit then has a chance to break as currently happens.

This would allow the worn but defiant units to hold their ground in an assault, or panic and give ground, but not nearly as certain as currently. Alternatively, I also like hiding disruption status from the enemy side.

A bit off the original thread but just as interesting I think.

Rick

I'm not even sure Disruption is actually needed. The effects could probably be simulated in with fatigue.
One thing that might help the defender would be to have disruption status hidden under fog of war. I mean you can tell if the unit is disrupted but you can't tell if there are 101 or 999 men in the unit?