How do you improve PzB???

[Dog Soldier]

Dog Soldier might be a bit fed up with my commentary by now, as he might think I'm saying that all his results come from luck, but what I'm trying to say is that there's a fairly narrow number of results that the system allows which in this case doesn't give a truly significant advantage to the side with better crews, vehicles and guns. It's similar to the way attacking bunkers works.

I think you have missed my points ComradeP. The results of combat are not random or as narrow as you are saying. You are correct that your math posted in this thread is guess work. John Tiller has never supplied the exact math for PzC or SqB, so I doubt that is forth coming for PzB.

I can say that the results of the Germans attacking the bunkers in Gertsovka were correct as far as I can tell from playing this game for well over a year in development. When there was only one Russian platoon (50 men) holding a bunker, close to 250 German infantry and engineers pushed the defending Russian platoon out out in an assault in our game. In my experience this make sense. 5:1 numbers coupled with the strong assault factors for engineers assisting the infantry should carry the day. However, nothing in warfare is guaranteed like the result of a mathematical equation. Correct math always yields a consistent result. In the game the correct tactics and use of force will produce a desired result, most of the time, but not always.

When the remaining bunkers in Gertsovka were packed with Russian troops, rooting them out was no easy task for the German infantry. Without heavy weapons support, it was very costly to assault over several turns while taking fire from both the target bunker defenders and the rest of the Russian garrison which concentrated their fire on the German infantry stuck in the open next to the bunker on the main road. This again worked as it should. I would not expect those Russians with near equal numbers in a hard bunker position to just 'roll over' and surrender. At Kusrk many times it is documented that Russians fought for a position until overwhelmed causing greater casualties on the German attackers than in previous battles until Stalingrad. This is what wore down the German offensive at Kursk. The same happens in the game.

Dog Soldier implied that tactics can beat math, but as math decides the result, that isn't how it works. When you gather X amount of men or vehicles and fire or assault, the actual result of that is beyond your control. Variability is a good thing, but it shouldn't by itself be allowed to decide a game in situations where a lot of variable outcomes are possible. An example would be breaking through several rows of bunkers. If the defenders disrupt early, your chance of winning is much greater than if everyone fights to the death, yet there's no significant way you can influence events aside from selecting the best units for the assault.

Correct use of combined arms will make bunker lines easier to break. This can be seen in other scenarios. Gertsovka and the other 10 turns scenarios are a limited case, where attacking infantry without much support have a tough time dealing with bunkers. Back those same infantry up with some assault guns, PzIVs, and or Tigers and the results are far different.

What Dog Soldier and I are doing currently, like what happened when he assaulted bunkers in Gertsovka, has little to do with tactics, but purely with math and the die rolls derived from them. An example: one of his Churchill units was disrupted with 8 tanks or so. It knocked out 3 of my tanks at 2 hex range. Mathematically speaking, his fire value at hex range 2 wouldn't be enough to deal with the defense rating of a Panzer IV G (19/2 due to being disrupted=9.5, divided by 1.5 range modified= 6,33 which is lower than 10) The system has a lot of variation which limits the effectiveness of good units, keeps casualties low and prevents the Germans from dealing with a numerically superior foe without it closing in.

This description is not entirely accurate, which is understandable in the FOW situation. for one thing, the Churchill tank unit had rallied and was not disrupted. And they had friends fire with them. That is how they eliminated the last two PzIVg's in a platoon at two hex range.

FWIW, your own posts confirm armor combat is working well. Against Pijus Magnificus in your post #23 in this thread, you show the Victory Dialog from that game. 64 Russian tanks + one A/C lost to only 12 German vehicles. You told me this was due to the Germans engaging the Russians at long range. At longer ranges, I would expect the German PzIVgs to get good results. The quality difference in the forces is most relevant at the longer ranges.
In our game of Nepkhaevo, my Russians have given you very no opportunity to pick off tanks at long ranges. The fire fight between the tank forces has been at close ranges through out the time we are engaged. As at Stalingrad with the street fighting the German quality edge is not so significant when the fighting is in close. A target is a target and more easy to hit at two and three hexes for both side, with neither having a real advantage. This is proved out by our near equal losses. The problem, which was historically a problem, is the the Germans can ill afford to trade losses like this for long.

The Russians at Kursk sought to fight at close ranges. As a player for the Russian side I have done the same and achieved desired results. The equal number of tanks lost reflects the greater loss of overall firepower for the German force as for every PzIVg tank lost the advantage the German force had at start is diminished more than the loss of a T-34 or Churchill to the Soviets. Each round of combat (game turn) has allowed the Russian force to to continue to dish out as much punishment as the Germans do. This is not a good thing for any East Front German commander.

The low casualties also mean establishing overwatch positions isn't likely to work as well as they would in real life, because enemy tank units can always close in and the casualties from opportunity fire are fairly low and fairly random as well.

FWIW, you never set up proper over watch positions in our game of Nepkhaevo with your panzers. In play testing Strela and I did use over watch positions as we advanced the German force with very good results against the Russian tank force. So, I am a bit unimpressed with this statement you are making which is an extrapolation of an an incorrect theory, IMHO. Actual game results in many months of play have demonstrated to my satisfaction that going nose to nose with an equal Russian force in the open at close range can be a bad tactic for a German force.
I think most gamers will agree.

ComradeP waited patiently for four turns for my Russian tanks to run into his trap, but I did not comply. I sent my armored car recon unit ahead and scouted for two turns until I was satisfied I had found enough of the German force to know how to deploy my armor effectively to counter the ambush. You are correct I did not find every last German tank position, but such certainty is not required for a player of my humble skills.

We have both used smoke to our advantage in this game. I even used your smoke rounds to advance close to your tank lines without much defensive fire. Smoke is a two edge sword in this case.

When the smoke cleared in your turn, you got off the first shots. Defensive fire from the Russians was adequate enough to keep them on the fight at such close ranges. The fire from my Russians in my turn tended to even up the losses each turn. And I used my smoke once to cover my advance to the western victory hex you had seized and stay close even as the German tanks tried to back off and extend the range.

The difference in this game (now at turn seven) and your game with Pijus Magnificus is the difference in Russian tactics, not math. 18 Russian vehicles to 14 German ones is a exactly what I was trying to achieve.
I would say in summary, I have done a lot in our game to not let you have your way and use the German force as you would like. But that is the job of an opponent, is it not?

Dog Soldier