Panzer Campaigns update

[Fhil]

Gentlemen,

As a response to the great news announced regarding the upcoming update of our beloved Panzer Campaigns, I would like to share some thoughts with you regarding the current state of the series, especially one issue.
First of all, I want to thank the guys that they are taking care about the series.
Secondly, I want to state, that this is not some crying for a new engine or something like that, we´ll be talking about a particular correction to the system, which I believe shouldn´t be technically so difficult to execute provided you have the needed access, yet it would have a major impact on the game in the positive sense, without throwing the campaigns and scenarios off balance, but rather balancing them back as they are mostly too off-tracks currently.
Thirdly, written below will mostly be true for those titles covering the eastern front, although also generally valid for the rest of the titles as well.
Fourthly, this will be a really long post, prepare yourself! 

So, let´s get to the matter.
I´ve played every big eastern campaign game except for Rzhev and Moscow ´43 and many smaller scenarios, plus all the major western main campaigns except for France ´40.
And after all the engine updates done to them so far, I must say thatmany of the big campaigns are simply unplayable, thrown too much off-balance. Now, don´t see me as a guy that doesn´t enjoy the game from the moment he looses. Yes, I didn´t finish some games, I think it happens to everyone from time to time, but it was never because of the upcoming defeat or something like that. I usually play and enjoy my games to the final turn, if there is a sense in it of course. I consider myself a very experienced player.
Although these updates thrown the game off balance and there are more issues that demands fixing, there is one particular thing that hampers the game from the beginning, an unlucky choice to the system. And I think that cancelling it´s effect would help really greatly.
The system rule I´m talking about is this one simple thing: Disrupted units have half their movement allowance.

This single simple rule breaks most of the potentially strategically interesting campaigns into a some kind of a shooter on a map with counters. Cannot find better description than this.
Again, this is mostôy true for the eastern titles. Germans have too many bonuses on their side, coupled with sometimes an unlucky scenario design (no low supply in some scenarios where historically experienced, many times no fatigue or losses on their units) the scenario is unplayable, unless you´re playing a real rookie on the Axis side. I will explain in better detail below, with some examples to illustrate.

Now, the combat doesn´t go realistically at all, I know we can´t reach a super realism, but this is way too far from any realism. (we´re talking mainly about the big campaigns on the eastern front).
In reality, even badly shattered and beaten Soviet formations back in for the disastrous years 1941 and 1942  were able to retreat back hundreds of kilometers (while keeping their heavy weapons) with their enemy chasing them!
They were not able do to so only if forbidden to do so or if they were trapped in a pocket (usually a big operationally created pocket), which was reached using the panzer corps on the flanks, breaking through and cutting them off somewhere in their deep rear.

Now these games are called Panzer Campaigns right? But they lack what was  operationally so fascinating on them - even German panzer divisions were not so powerfull to just advance all along the front and beat the enemy on the spot. That´s why they had to employ such strategy, especially against so horiffically numerous Red Army. But in these games, the panzers are used just like a shotgun in a shooter game :/

These titles are archetypal for such operational situations: Smolensk ´41, Kharkov ´42, Moscow ´41.
Let´s take a look on Smolensk main campaigns for example:

Gentlemen,

As a response to the great news announced regarding the upcoming update of our beloved Panzer Campaigns, I would like to share some thoughts with you regarding the current state of the series, especially one it´s issue.
First of all, I want to thank the guys they are taking care about the series.
Secondly, I want to state, that this is not a cry for a new engine or something like that, we´ll be talking about a particular correction to the system, which I believe shouldn´t be technically so difficult to execute provided you have the needed access.
Yet, it would have a major impact on the game in the positive sense, without throwing the campaigns and scenario off balance, rather balancing them back as they are mostly too off-tracks currently.
Thirdly, written below will mostly be true for those titles covering the eastern front, although valid for the rest of the titles as well.
Fourthly, this will be a really long post

So, let´s get to the matter.
I´ve played every big eastern campaign game, and many smaller scenarios, plus all the mayor western main campaigns except for France ´40.
And after all the engine updates done to them so far, many of the big campaigns are unplayable, thrown too much off-balance. Now, don´t see me as a guy that doesn´t enjoy the game from the moment he looses. Yes, I didn´t finish some games, I think it happens to everyone from time to time, but it was never because of the upcoming defeat. I usually play and enjoy my games to the final turn, if there is a sense in it of course. I consider myself a very experienced player.
Although these updates thrown the game off balance and there are more issues that demands fixing, there is one particular thing that hampers the game from the beginning, an unlucky choice to the system. And I think that cancelling it´s effect would help really greatly.
The system rule I´m talking about is this one simple thing: Disrupted units have half their movement allowance.

This single simple rule breaks most of the potentially strategically interesting campaigns into a some kind of a shooter on a map with counters.
Again, this is most true for the eastern titles. Germans have too many bonuses on their side, coupled with a unlucky scenario design (no low supply in some scenarios, many times no fatigue or losses on their units) the scenario is unplayable, unless you´re playing a real rookie on the Axis side. I will explain in better detail below, with some examples to illustrate.

Now, the combat doesn´t go realistically, I know we can´t reach a super realism, but this is way too far from any realism. (we´re talking mainly about the big campaigns on the eastern front).
In reality, even badly shattered and beaten Soviet formations back in for them the disastrous years 1941 and 1942  were able to retreat back hundreds of kilometers (keeping their heavy weapons) with their enemy chasing them!
They were not able do to so only if they were trapped in a pocket (usually a big operationally created pocket), which was reached using the panzer corps on the flanks, breaking through and cutting them off somewhere in their deep rear.
These titles are archetypal for such operational situations: Smolensk ´41, Kharkov ´42, Moscow ´41.
Let´s take a look on Smolensk main campaigns for example:


Main campaign scenario, looks interesting with plenty of options for both sides.


Second campaign scenario, few days later. Shows us how the situation operationally evolved historically.

Now - how many of the games you have played actually evolved into something at least similarly interesting?
I´ve played the first main campaign three or four times - twice as a German, I´ve swift across the map with many turns left. There is no need to try to create some pocket to surround Soviet armies at all. No worries like the Germans had back then. You will just beat them on the spot after meeting them in the field. Division by division. They simply cannot retreat once they will engage in combat with the German counterpart. They will disrupt, and due to losing half their movement points (and even more due to Quality modifier too, further exacerbating the problem) they will be destroyed piece by piece. An experienced player can have a master player on the soviet side against him, but he cannot loose this one, there´s no chance.
Playing twice as Soviets, I was once able to even destroy entirely one German motorized division near Roslavl. That game was still finished the same way like me being on the German side.

I hope you´re getting the idea by now. Now I don´t say it is the fault of this rule alone. Another issue is the different OOB style for the two sides. In the very beginning, Smolensk as the first game was released as a battalion size simulation. After some time, it was ´fixed´ to the current state which was applied to all the titles - company level German side, battalion side Soviet side. This is a big issue, but doesn´t create such a problem in campaigns where there are tons of Soviet divisions attacking (Korsun, Stalingrad, Minsk for example).
But the inability to retreat properly (due to not having enough movement points) is the more severe one and demands much less work to fix than reworking the OOB.

And it´s not even something new! Please mind that this rule was left out from the FWWC! Maybe it´s designers could put some insight why is that so? But there must have been a reason behind it.
I do not own any FWW title, but my information should be correct - even disrupted units move normally there. You will hardly be able to properly switch your units in the first line here if you´re units are unable to move normally. You won´t be able to retreat in the face of the pursuing enemy.
Not sure what this rule was intended to simulate in the end - but I guess it is poor command? Ok, could be, but it simply doesn´t work, there are many things not simulated in the system, Soviet side is penalized on many other levels and areas (and absolutely correctly in many instances).

Now, why is there no possibility for such an interesting operational situation to ever occur?
Let´s take a look on the whole unlucky recipe:

- Different OOB structure, which basically allows the Germans to surround every single battalion of the Soviet division using just 1/3rd of it´s force. (impossible to fix for the already existing scenarios - too much time and work)
- Disrupted units have half of their movement allowance - the issue we´re talking about (more or less easy to fix I believe, there must be a code responsible for this)
- Quality movement allowance modifier - further exacerbating the problem, most German panzers are A, most infantry B, thus majority of German forces receive bonus. Most Russian units are D(which already receives penalty to MP), few turns of combat and they are E already, couple that with a disruption and/or low on ammo and you are moving one hex per move, two if you are lucky. Nothing realistic, once the unit starts retreating, it´s soldiers, cars, horses move normally. (it would be best to have this cancelled as well, a tank with a happy german crew moves the same speed like with the sad tank crew, it is the type of terrain, type of vehicle that decides at what speed it moves). This was incorporated sometimes later with one of the updates. I don´t think it was needed at all, just moved the game off-balance even more.
- Low Fuel effects - this rule is absolutely correct, shouldn´t be changed I believe, it´s also affecting only motorized units, but I have to put it here as it is affecting also the movement. (no need to change, so or so it´s an optional rule).
- Night turns being 4 hours - might surprise you, but this is an important thing as well. Many retreats, switching of units in the frontline, reserves buildup and similar maneuvers were executed at night under the cover of darkness. Now the Soviet army for example, in the Smolensk campaign as well, was able to move almost only during the night, as formations moving during daylight received an immediate attention from Luftwaffe and were badly beaten even before reaching the front. Now, under current conditions, it´s absolutely the opposite. You are able to move only half of what you would move during the day turns. (8 hours = 4 day turns, but only 2 night turns). Nothing unrealistic as well, a T-34 tank will move just the same distance on the road whether is it day or night for example. And the fuel test is executed during the midnight as far as I know, which is not good for a long column of motorized forces. Once the units doesn´t pass it (it´s HQ is probably in Travel mode some hexes ahead/behind) and it becomes low on Fuel, it will be punished further, so you may finish up with moving 1/4 of what you could at night. (This is very easy to fix using the pdt editor, but for every night there is you´d have to add 2 more turns to the scenario lenght in order to not damage it). Don´t take my calculations too strictly, they are a guess.

As you can see, some other issues are pretty big also, but the second ingredient is the most severe. While the others make it more or less difficult or you as a defender, this one gives you no chance. The units are thus too short lived once thrown into battle, and that is true for Germans in the later titles also, it is not exclusive to the Red Army, it just has the biggest effect on it and thus making those early campaigns simply unplayable (if you wan´t to have some real challenge of course and enjoy the game meanwhile).


Take a look on this map, depicting the retreat of Soviet armies (mostly rifle divisions) hundreds of kilometers back, some of them barely escaping the encirclement. Some of them were so badly beaten they were sent to the far rear to rebuild and reorganize, not coming back to see combat for months. Yet before that, they were able to normally move back once receiving such orders, with all the German might falling on them and pursuing them.


Here´s the scenario The Don Bend from Stalingrad ´42. It suffers from that recipe really extremely. Highly unplayable. Give me whoever on the Soviet side, I will beat him, he doesn´t have a chance, not because I am experienced and he wouldn´t be. The current system doesn´t give him a chance!



Yet historically, take a look on the situation after few days: very interesting. Although some situations resulted from too late orders to retreat or to not retreat at all, it doesn´t change the situation. There is not much to enjoy in such a scenario, unless you are a guy that pursuits some easy victory and than you are proud what a good commander you are :) There is even one hidden ingredient that throws this particular scenario off balance - the German forces experienced such a bad supply situation here, that the 6th Army had to switch do the defense after two days, there was no fuel to finish the intended encirclement of the Soviet 62nd Army. No such supply problems are addressed in the scenario, but that is a scenario designer´s decision and also can be easily fixed using the scenario editor (Supply changes).


What can a 13-counters Soviet division unable to break down and mainly unable to retreat do against 50+ counters single German division? All panzers are A quality, 0 fatigue and with only really minimal losses. Yet this division didn´t perish right there like it will everytime you will play this. And an argument that you can start withdrawing from turn 1 is not valid and does not solves the problem at all. It will end up having every single battalion isolated from behind, because the A quality units just have to break through one of them in order to get behing and find and trap every single one of them.



There are countless more examples: impossibility to retreat with the Romanians in the Uranus campaign (once they are disrupted, they are gone forever, they will be consumed), impossibility to retreat properly in Vyazma or Moscow campaign, Kharkov campaign - souther Soviet part of the bulge is basically few Soviet units exactly the same like in the example above against 6 times more A quality unit counters on the German side etc. etc. Don´t think that the small scenario do not suffer greatly from this, it´s just digestible somewhat in those as it cannot show itself so well.

The point is - these battles were not decided by surrounding enemy battalions, companies unit by unit, not even Normandy, although that was a different type of battle. You had to rout your enemy in order to break through and than based on the particular operational plan try to surround as big part of his forces as possible and as soonest as possible. Name any big operation, it will very probably involve some kind of at least an overall idea to isolate and capture the enemy, if not being it the target of the offensive/counteroffensive, as it is simply the fastest way to defeat him.

Yet the Panzer Campaigns due to the above stated areunplayable in such a way. Yes, Normandy works, Salerno, Sicily Anzio also, even Bulge ´44, even Sealion ´40 (played all of them). Why? First of all, there is a match in  theOOB structure - it is the same structure, company based on both sides. That is a huge, huge difference. Another thing is the basically similar quality of units on both sides and also these battles are not such operational- maneuver campaigns, rather tactical-maneuver battles. From the eastern front, only the titles that involve the Red Army on the attack are playable - Korsun, Minsk, although there are often other specific problems too but they are playable and enjoyable.

So, this way, I would like to ask you guys responsible for this update, erase that rule from the system. It won´t heal everything, but it will help more than anything else. If you are afraid it would out-balance the scenarios (which are unbalaced at this state, many rounds of updates were implemented also without any playtesting), please make it or them (if we would count the quality movement modifier) at least optional.

It is said that the Panzer Campaigns favour the attacker. Well, it is indeed slightly worse. After all the years, the only help that the defender received, was the Delayed Disruption Reporting without which I cannot imagine to play today. There is another help needed, otherwise your update, despite being a move forward (especially the graphics) will be like I´ve mentioned in the Scenario Design Center - painting a new colour on a broken machine :/

These games doesn´t have to be top perfect, although there is that huge potential in them, they just have to be reasonably enjoyable. I believe that you are still supporting them is because you want them to be playable even after almost 20 years like it´s in the case of Smolensk or Normandy title. I cannot help myself, but this is a must-step forward.


Please, everybody, feel free to respond, throw in some arguments for or against, your experience and view of this issue. I will be responding. I am confident though, that this is a very big issue too left out and that no update missing this will change my mind on the playability of most of the campaigns.

PS: Do I win the price for the longest opening post?