Damage dealt to small units

[ComradeP]

FWIW, my troops in the game eat small units for breakfast. It is also called 'mopping up'.

In the open, sure, just like any Soviet D quality infantry formation might as well not be there, but that's not the situation I'm talking about. I'm talking about stacks of small units in crucial positions, usually bunkers, not being removable in a timely manner.

Just not true in my experience. Disruption is not always required. One has to develop a feel for this, I know.

This has been mentioned regularly as well, and it is true to a certain extent. However, the disruption mechanics do depend solely on a die roll. Direct player influence is limited. There are no consistent results, and if course some unpredictability is fine but the results can be too inconsistent in my opinion.

For example: in the same turn that a 90 men A quality PzG unit removed a ~30 men Guards recon unit out of its hex on the first assault, a 90 men unit failed to assault a single gun. It's that lack of consistence, and such clear examples of it all coming down to a die roll, that in my opinion degrade the system. In the past, I've posted a test run or two of how direct fire generally gives more predictable and better results than assaults.

In the same II SS PzK 5th of July game, there are or were several Soviet stacks that have been isolated for a while but which I just can't attack in an efficient manner because the "both sides use the same stacking limit" and "multiple small units in a hex all need to be disrupted" part of the mechanics mean I literally can't launch a good assault. As my influence stops after isolating the defender and gathering a large force, that again shows just how much the assault system depends on die rolls, and what the weaknesses of the current assault system are.

In Pokrovka, splitting the 4 gun AT units up makes it less likely for an assault to work, and has resulted in a significant difference in the results between my game against Gregor and the one for the tournament against PijusMagnificus.

The "average" result for assaults is at the moment in my opinion too unreliable to be able to say that you can truly develop a feel for it. I've seen too many assaults on small units fail, particularly gun units, to be able to say that there is enough predictability in the results to develop a feel.

The same goes for direct fire against small units. You have good and bad direct fire results when the smaller units have 20 or so men, which is fine, but situations such as Landser34's single T-34 taking fire from an entire Tank Brigade and just sitting there again reinforce the feeling of there being too little consistency.

Use the Soviet engineers to man the bunker supply point at Bykovka as you suggest. There is no way of either side to guarantee victory in any PzB Kursk scenario.

There is no way to guarantee victory, but there are ways to guarantee victory in a particular scenario. In this case, I'll have 4-5 turns to clear the objective hex. That might be impossible. I'm not saying capturing the hex is impossible, just that there are very efficient tactics (manipulating the assault system through creating stacks of small units in bunkers) that can prevent the capture of an objective in a timely manner as in the end it will all come down to die rolls.

If we'd play the scenario, and you would have 5 or so turns to clear the objective in such a situation and you would do so, whilst I in the same situation wouldn't, that would simply mean your disruption rolls were better, all other factors being (roughly) equal.

In Panzer Battles, you will generally have both more units and more small units in an area than in PzC, and in my opinion the effect this has on how assaults go against a good defender in prepared positions is clear.