How do you improve PzB???

[ComradeP]

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.

Whether the results were correct or not isn't my point. Before Gertsovka, we had a discussion if defenders in bunkers could on average be removed in an amount of time that would allow the Germans to win a bunker-heavy scenario, in this case Gertsovka.

Your position was that proper tactics would allow you to do so on average.
My position was that the defenders using the same maximum stacking rules, and the requirement for all units to be disrupted, made it very random and improbable to impossible for well-defended bunkers.

The result of the game was precisely what I had predicted, not what you said would be possible. It didn't have much to do with your tactics or mine, but everything with how the system requires a lot of time+heavy weapons to clear well-defended bunkers, which unbalances short scenarios with a lot of bunkers.

That was the only thing I was trying to prove: that small scenarios with a lot of bunkers can be unbalanced if the defender concentrates his forces in bunkers.

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.

What I meant was that they destroyed 3 tanks in the same turn that they were disrupted in earlier. That's the result that, to me, didn't make much sense. What they did in your next turn was fine.

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.

I guess a lot of our disagreement boils down to what a longer range is. In my opinion, and from what the WWII literature implies, WWII Soviet optics and the layout of the T-34 made it unlikely it would hit a target at 750 meters or so, 500 meters would already be somewhat difficult.

Take Panzer Command, just to name a tactical wargame example. A T-34 has just a 20% (unmodified) hit chance of hitting anything at around 750 meters. A Panzer IV G still has a roughly 50% hit chance (unmodified). In Panzer Battles, both weapon systems still function fairly normally. Sure, the range effect decreases effectiveness, but that just influences the die roll instead of it directly preventing hits.

It would also fire much slower than a Panzer IV G, particularly one with an experienced and well trained crew. At 750 meters, it also wouldn't be able to penetrate the armour of a Panzer IV G with APHE ammo. The Panzer IV G would still be able to penetrate the armour of a T-34, albeit barely.

The game doesn't include accuracy, declining armor penetration or rate of fire.

In an evenly matched fight above 500 meters or so, Soviet casualties would start to mount rapidly. In the game, they don't. Like we're both saying: my Kill to Death ratio is poor at the time.

In my opinion, that just isn't a historical depiction of Eastern Front armoured combat. You don't consider 750 meters to be long range, but the maximum range of the weapon systems in the game is highly deceptive when it comes to actual historical performance. Any tank without a long-barreled gun and very good optics reliably hitting anything at over 1000 meters not to mention 2000 meters was a rare event.

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.

What would you consider proper overwatch positions?

My forces were and are positioned some 3 to 4 hexes away, and initially did require your tanks to move in closer. The problem is that opportunity fire casualties are so (ahistorically) low that you can't reliably set up overwatch positions at realistic combat ranges.

Sure, I could've placed my Panzer IV G's further to the rear, but that wouldn't have been realistic. Most of the casualties I caused to Pijus Magnificus were at very ahistorical ranges.

Again, this is what's at the core of our argument: what a historical engagement range is. The game doesn't really force you to fight at historical ranges, and it currently has insufficient mechanics to prevent enemy tank forces from closing in.

Take that scenario with the 2 Tigers. In the game, the Soviets can close in whilst taking 2-3 losses or so, maybe 4. Historically, a single Tiger knocked out over 20 tanks. Such a result is just not likely to happen in the game.

ComradeP waited patiently for four turns for my Russian tanks to run into his trap, but I did not comply.

Actually, I just wanted to see if you committed your tanks elsewhere.

I already knew from my own testing that the tank vs. tank mechanics wouldn't allow me to establish a clear superiority at ranges below 4 hexes or so.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on how historically accurate the current tank/gun vs. tank/gun model is, whether the Panzer IV G should be a comparable weapon system to a T-34 at 750 meters and whether the current lack of armor penetration, accuracy or rate of fire modelling causes problems with the current engine.

A longer maximum engagement range isn't a good representation of superior accuracy in my opinion, as superior accuracy applies at any range and the superior hard attack value is already reduced by the hard attack vs. defence rule and only influences the final die roll.

If there's anything that shows the variability of die rolls, and that die rolls impact the game more than tactics in many cases is the way casualties are caused. You fire at an enemy unit and you might get No Effect, Fatigue or 1 or 2 enemy vehicles being lost. But what did I actually do to influence that? What did Dog Soldier actually do to influence his Disrupted tank unit destroying 3 tanks? Nothing, they were all just determined by the system.

If the mathematical basis of the system is ignored as the primary cause of the results we see, some things might never be improved. We need to be able to look at results with an open mind and think: what happens here, how does it happen, is it supposed to happen according to what we're told about how the system should work and is this what should happen historically? The tank/gun vs. tank/gun system is one of the mechanics that could benefit from changes.