PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion

[ComradeP]

Really? Never noticed it before.

Due to the increased mobility in PB due to non-locking ZOCs, the tactic is much more efficient than in PzC.

It takes some real getting used to that your units can just walk around enemy defensive positions.

[Jeff Conner]

This is also a holdover from PzC. There is a variable the designer can set in the pdt file that allows movement from ZOC to ZOC and determines the cost. The only two games I recall that used a non-zero value were Tobruk and El Alamein, although there could have been others. Why it was thought that it would be easier to move under fire in a often featureless area like the desert might be a good question.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I don't like locking zoc and feel a unit should not be prevented from movingto the next hex because of it, even at this scale. The only way to keep a unit from moving is to have it completely surrounded, then it's not a move any longer, but an attempted assault to escape.

---

It does make sense that an engineer unit just moved into a MF and then another passing through in trucks to the next one should not be allowed before a path is even made in the first one. I don't know how long it takes to clear a MF or even a path through one, but seems, it might should take at least a couple of turns and a second eng unit could make that on the second turn assuming eng units clear a path first, then goes on to clear the rest. Either that or could implement a choice that engs could clear path first or just clear period.

[Kuriltai]

The only two games I recall that used a non-zero value were Tobruk and El Alamein, although there could have been others. Why it was thought that it would be easier to move under fire in a often featureless area like the desert might be a good question.

T41 was a long time ago...but if I remember correctly it was to make encirclement's harder,nothing to do with easier to move under fire.

[Jeff Conner]

That may have been the intention, but it actually makes it easier to encircle a defensive position as you can move between units unless there is a continuous line. It also makes it easier to escape from encirclement, however. IMHO, it makes it easier to attack a defensive line of bunkers rather than to defend one.

The rational, at least the way it was explained to me way back when, was that the general idea that units could not move from one zone of control to another was because of the amount of fire generated by the defenders. And I am at a loss to explain another reason for this fairly general idea in wargaming. The smaller the scale, generally the less this rule is relied on. Which is why it makes a lot of sense that it is used in Panzer Battles. I just wanted to point out that it is not a new rule change, but has been a part of Panzer Campaigns all along.

[Strela]

Personally, I think the non locking ZOC's and fortified lines works ok.

We did a lot of testing on this. Originally when we had what we thought were 'Kursk like' minefields (level two or three) etc we found that bunker lines were impregnable - ZOC's or no ZOC's. The reason for this was the time under fire that it took to clear mine hexes. With only engineers clearing mines and all others isolated when in them (this is a key point) there was both a premium on engineers and a maniacal attempt to kill them at every opportunity. Attacks would bog down very, very quickly and after a couple of turns there would be no more engineers.

For that reason we dropped minefields back to one, but built depth into the defences. Rarely (at least in the first two fortified lines) is there a single minefield or AT Trench line. You can absolutely move through the ZOC's but you an guarantee you will be in a minefield or hit obstacles in the second hex. If you're not an engineer then you've dropped a morale level for being isolated.

For the defenders we got a key change built into the code. You do not cop the double whammy of isolation & low ammo like in PzC. Units are assumed to have combat load of ammunition that will survive the period of the engagement. The drop for isolation is to reflect the psychological impact of being cut off - nothing else.

Dog Soldier and I have played scenarios where bunkers have held out for ten turns despite being isolated and it can be a very bloody affair clearing them. The only failsafe way I have found to date is to use the historical tactics of combined arms using armoured firepower (usually Tigers & Stugs) to try and shoot up the defenders before the infantry assault. Without armour it's a hard grind. I suggest players push the counters around a little bit more before deciding whether there is an advantage to the attacker or defender.

David

[Strela]

One other thing I forgot to mention in my prior post. We had very detailed 'timing's of events. For example how long it took the SS to breach the various defensive lines. Much of the defences were setup to allow a median time that matched this historical time. With play testing we proved that we had got a close approximation to the historical attacks.

David

[Jeff Conner]

David

When I mentioned that I thought changing the zone of control modifier to a number other than zero made it easier to take bunkers, I was referring to the original Panzer Campaigns rather than Panzer Battles. I stand by that comment. I never said it was easy to take bunkers in either game. However, with that said, wouldn't it still be easier (but not easy) to take a bunker if you can isolate the defenders and force them to drop a morale level? It is going to increase the chance of them disrupting, either due to fire or assault. And if they do go low ammo due to regular gameplay, they are going to drop two morale levels as they will be unable to resupply. Of course the downside to the attacker moving past defenders is that they are then ripe to be isolated by counterattacks themselves.

[Dog Soldier]

We found in testing that the double jeopardy of low ammo and isolation was causing pillboxes and bunkers to be easily reduced. I was able to reduce a strongly held fortified position, a pillbox in a village, in about two turns. This was way too fast. Soviet Guards who start with 'C' quality, if losing the two steps in morale become 'E' morale. An assault by an equal number of German infantry at 'A' morale had too big an advantage. The attackers rarely failed on the first assault. The loss of half the defenders, and the fatigue the remaining defenders acquired would leave them at over 100 fatigue. They were easily mopped up the next turn by several platoon sized assaults. In an hour the fortification was cleared. Not much of a delay for the attackers.

Therefore, Strela came up with the rational that for the period of PzB scenarios, less than a day, there was sufficient ammo loads to avoid the low ammo used in PzC. In PzC the time of a turn is longer and the units larger to have the low ammo effect.
This worked much better. Hope that explains why we dropped the low ammo requirement.

Dog Soldier

[Jeff Conner]

Did you drop the possibility of units going low ammo totally (if so, it's still in the manual) or just for isolated units? I was a bit hesitant about this initially, but now I kind of like the idea. They shouldn't run low on ammo any faster, than if they were not isolated, so why penalize them further.