Panzer Campaigns update

[larsonney]

I sure want a prize for reading the whole thing!!

Interesting points...I don't have the time to address most of the article, but some of your points have me thinking in ways I haven't before. Here is my 2 cents...

First, for credibility sake, I am currently playing multiple Smolensk campaigns, from both sides. I love the PZC systems, but I would disagree with you that there are flaws in the game design...instead, I believe that players "game" the campaigns more than what happened in real life, regardless of what rules the engine uses.

For example:

Generally, I pocket and destroy, then move on...or try to leapfrog a couple of divisions using that process. This usually means I move slower than historically, at least when I compare my strategic map to a historical map. But I clear the map behind me, something not done historically (Hence the "game" comment above.

In a couple of Smolensk campaigns, as the Germans, I have instead bypassed parts of Soviet rifle divisions and achieved more historical results in terms of advance. However, in those instances I have then had the bypassed units show up across my LOCs in the rear much later and then spent forever trying to subdue the pesky units with scrambled reserves. Inevitably, some of the Russians disappear back into the marshes or forests, only to reappear again somewhere else later.

This is especially impacts German operations when you play explicit supply and the trucks/wagons can't get to the leading units because they are dodging Russian units in the rear!

My point is, if I play ahistorically, as I usually do and most of my opponents seem too (I have nightmares over units appearing in my rear areas!!), is that the game system or is that my style of play? This is especially true on the Eastern front (Like Smolensk), where unit density is just not sufficient to the task.

Thoughts? Jon