PZC System not much being said

[Death Wombat]

Some other ideas I had while driving home the other day...keep in mind that the game system has improved 100% since its origin and is still fantastic in many respects. These are just wish list things.

1. I've asked for this since Smolensk, but I still want a "grease pencil" feature, where I can draw with the mouse on the map in an overlay. I want to draw formation boundaries, phase lines, objectives, etc., and be able to toggle the overlay on and off. Ideally I'd like four or more overlays that can be layered, and where you can draw, say, formation boundaries and propagate them through all the layers, and then draw phase lines, say, on different overlays so you can have the formation boundaries on all of them but each overlay can for instance have the objectives and phaselines for a different date. This would help immensely with situational awareness in larger battles, at least for me.

2. I want to be able to have the jump map in a freely resizeable and movable, modal window that I can drag off the main map in windowed mode on a large screen, or simply leave up while doing other stuff. I'd like it zoomable too.

3. I want to be able to select an enemy hex and then through some command or other highlight all the arty that can hit that hex (in range, spotted). Even better, I want this action to pop up an artillery dialogue of just those artillery units that can hit that hex, and allow me to fire them. Right now the arty system is focused on the shooters, not the shootees--I want to work from the perspective of what I can hit, not what I can shoot.

4. I want an OB display that is also in a movable window and where I can drill down by mouse clicks, and which will highlight the formations or units selected on the map. The display should be in standard "tree" form with unit counter graphics too.

5. I want (and this is a significant code change, alas) the freakin' minefields and obstacles to be their own type of object and not treated as units for LOS purposes. I don't like minefields and obstacles disappearing at night. Some folks point out the way troops blunder into these things in real life but at the near god-like level we're commanding troops our colonels and captains can keep track of that crap. Once spotted, mines and obstacles should remain spotted until removed (though if they're removed by the other side that should not be updated until a friendly unit once again has LOS).

6. I'd like to be able to create battlegroups on the fly, with HQs, depending on the force's morale and effectiveness.

[FLG]

5. I want (and this is a significant code change, alas) the freakin' minefields and obstacles to be their own type of object and not treated as units for LOS purposes. I don't like minefields and obstacles disappearing at night. Some folks point out the way troops blunder into these things in real life but at the near god-like level we're commanding troops our colonels and captains can keep track of that crap. Once spotted, mines and obstacles should remain spotted until removed (though if they're removed by the other side that should not be updated until a friendly unit once again has LOS).

I think this is an important suggestion. It is just not sensible that you can completely loose track of all mine fields and fortifications once they are out of sight. Fortification counters should remain on the board as last obsereved, untill re-observed, at which point there status should be updated. Mine field status should remain as is untill a friendly unit enters the hex again and actually physically investigates the status of the field. (Probably best done with mine engineers I would have thought.)

[Hadge]

Some good ideas coming out on this thread

Particularly agree with the comments on minefields and fortifications staying on the map once "stumbled" accross

I would like to see something done with the air dialog

a) Can we have it big enough to see which unit belongs to which formation?

b) Can it be made to perform like the arty dialog and highlight units which can be attacked by which air unit?

Cheers

Chris

[jonnymacbrown]

Particularly agree with the comments on minefields and fortifications staying on the map once "stumbled" accross

I can tell you fellows don't like to be surprised! :smoke: von ege

[Glenn Saunders]

Yeah, that works, but you still gotta wait for each shot to be resolved. I'm very impatient! :P

:) Turn off the sound and it will speed it up.

[Glenn Saunders]

[Glenn Saunders]

[JonS1]

Fury
The motor pool. It would solve the problem of the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions being motorized infantry in B44. I think it would also be good in EA42 too since I don't think the commonwealth infantry (or axis for that matter) had to hoof their way across the entire desert. I highly doubt we'll see it ever though since B44 on its own was not strong enough motivation.

Heh, the 82nd and the 101st in B44 was what got me thinking hard about the issue, but it isn't limited to just them. Another particular example is the MOT-ing of US 1st Inf Div for COBRA. For most of the camaign in Normandy this was a typical leg infantry division, but for that particualr Op it was completely mounted on trucks. How do you model that with the exisiting engine? The truck pool would be especially valid for Sic43, Sal43, MG44, N44, B44, and any other future module focussing on the Western Allies from mid-war onwards. But it is applicable to the other modules too, though perhaps less so.

Furthermore, the same routine could be used in Fulda Gap or North German Plain to give a more ... useful and flexible implementation of helo-mounted airmobile ops. Instead of having a few units capable of being choppered about, any unit that meets the requirement (ie, is on foot) could be allocated helos from a limited pool, lifted to another location, then the helos flutter off back to the pool. A slightly modified version could be used to represent a pool of APCs too (incl, for example, the Kangaroo Regts in 21AG in N44 and MG44, but also in FG and NGP).

Dog Soldier
The motor pool idea simulates the American Army in 1944 France, but I would be careful with it in the desert. the idea needs refinement along national lines. Many Italian units were left to their fate at EA42, when the Germans decided to bug out for Tunisia. Only a couple of Italian units were motorized and could keep up with the German's flight in that retreat.
Other examples would be the Axis satellite armies in Russia. Even the German Army in F40 was not motorized to the degree many previously thought they were. In Poland, 1939, the Panzers did not even operate as a separate arm but moved with the infantry.

Late in the war the German reliance on horse transport came to haunt them in the Soviet Summer offensives of 1944. Many German infantry divisions, or what was left of them, disintegrated. Having a transport pool there would seem very unrealistic.

The Soviets, never had enough transport to supply a breakthrough for very far, let alone dedicate any to moving "foot" units.

It especially simulate the UK and US armies in the second half of the war, but it can alos be used for other armies and other times. All your other points are valid, and all are easily handled by 'my' system. For example:
1) EA42 - you are the highest level Axis commander. You have enough trucks in your pool to lift a divisions worth of infantry. You can rescue a divisions worth of German inf (eg, Ramke and some others), or a divisions worth of Italians (eg, Folgore) or some of each. The choice is yours, but either way some of your force will be left behind. Who's it going to be? The decision is yours, which is why you - as commander - get paid the big bucks ;)
2) Axis Satelites in Russia - again, as Axis commander you have a limited pool of trucks. You can use them to move a couple of German divisions up to where the fighting is, or you can move a couple of Hungarian divisions. Which would _you_ choose? Given that, why would you need any further constraints?
3) German armies in F40, and other times/armies with very limited truck resources - yup, agree, but it's a non-issue. The size of the truck pool is something that would be entirely in the hands of the scenario designer. In the case of late war Western Allies, enough trucks to lift about 1/3rd of the infantry sounds about right. For other scenarios there might be no trucks at all, on one or both sides.

Recall that the truck pool would _not_ entirely replace the existing MOT/on-foot capability. That existing capability within the game engine is perfect - more or less - for the German PzGren regts, the US Armd Inf bns, and the UK Motor bns. The truck pool would be a complement to the MOT/on-foot capability, applicable to the other grunt units.

Other possible tweaks to the truck pool that come to mind:
* Units that disembark from the trucks are automatically - or have some %age chance - of becoming disrupted. If you've ever seen grunts hop off trucks they tend to mill around for a while until some SNCO starts doing his prunes. The bigger the mob disembarking, the more likely this temporary confusion. The idea here is to discourage short hops in trucks.
* The truck pool could either be a discrete pool of trucks for each side which can be added to and subtracted from per the normanl reinforcement routines as the scenario progresses, or it could be a simple PDT setting. For example, in N44 the PDT line might read < 33 5 >, which means that 33% of the Allied force on-map can be truck mounted at any one time, while only 5% of the Germans can be. I'd prefer the discrete pool, by the PDT approach could work.

OTHER SUGGESTIONS

1) Enable time dependant PDTs. For some parameters, and especially in longer scenarios or campaigns, having a single set PDT is a bit limiting. The idea here is to have a couple of PDTs, which would become active on certain dates.

2) More national selectiveness in the PDT file. Currently a single setting applies to all forces on either side. For example a single reinforcement %age applies to both the Germans and the Italians in EA42, or the US and UK in N44.

Regards
JonS

[21pzr_backup]

Great thread;

Lots of stuff that's been covered before, but some good new suggestions as well.

I especially like the truck pool discussion. I've felt that not only B44, but N44 and MG44 would benefit from the Allies being able to truck battalions around for long operational moves (like from the beach to the front line) without making them motorised. I've always thought along the lines of units for this, but the suggestion to track it like the "on-foot" units makes a lot of sense. The British army usually had enough truck companies assigned to each division to lift one brigade at a time, throughout most of the war. The Italian infantry divisions in the desert were actually "auto-transportable" or "semi-motorised" which meant that there were enough trucks to lift one regiment, though Rommel usually stole those for other purposes.

Another area I'd like to discuss is the fortification/minefield/obstacle process. While I understand why the game engine makes these disappear when not spotted, this brings up a point someone made in another thread. Since the game engine treats these as "neutral" units rather than map features, and they can be placed on the map during scenario design, why can they not "arrive" as "reinforcements" during the game? This would surely help the Germans in N44, and the British in EA42, and many other situations. You could either have them arrive at locations fixed by the scenario designer at creation of the scen (either at historical locations, or where ever he feels they best assist the game flow), or maybe they could just arrive and be placed by the owning player wherever he wants, within restrictions (must be out of view of opposing units, not isolated, etc).

And yet another idea is engineer bridges. As it stands, any bridging unit can build a heavy bridge. I would like to see bridge engineers assigned a bridging strength, so that they can only build light, medium, or heavy bridges. Then the engineer battalions in infantry divisions, in nearly every army would only build light or medium bridges, while the heavy bridges would be limited to mechanised divisions, or higher headquarters. This would require players to husband these assets and concentrate them along the main axis of attack, etc.

Just my two cent's worth (actually three cents!)

Bill

[Death Wombat]