MC Changes

[Volcano Man]

Remove the ZOC for company units? No, I don't think that will happen, it would be too destabilizing to the games that already exist. Besides, a (NATO) company sized element could hold a 1.6km area, and especially project itself beyond that (NATO company frontages are something like 3-5km depending on the situation whereas WP battalions frontages were that same amount). However, you can remove the movement costs associated with ZOC movement by changing the ZOC movement multiplier value in the PDT to something like 1.

I still don't see why that would be a good thing though, NATO needs all the help they can get when it comes to holding the line with company sized units. Besides, everything I have seen in MC points to the fact that companies can indeed hold a ZOC chain front line but they can't hold it for very long because of fatigue accumulation.

As far as what Cpt Cav is referring to (two hex isolations), I think the only way to get rid of that sore spot is to allow units to retreat into a ZOC if it is from a NON adjacent unit. In that regard you would still get isolations from that situation but you wont be prone to being eliminated from such assaults as they would be able to retreat. Of course the assaulting side could follow it up with another assault after the retreat but in most cases the distant blocking unit is NOT a powerful combat unit, and so would be unable to inflict an effective second assault.

[CptCav]

VM,

While I agree with you that changing the ZOC rules would be too disruptive to the game series, I have to challenge your defensive frontage values. I do not know what they are currently, but when I was in the Army (80-84), a company would hold a one-to-two kilometer front or an average of one mile (our current hex size). In addition, a Soviet battalion holds a three-to-five kilometer frontage or also one mile per company.

As far as being able to control the surrounding one mile areas with firepower alone that is not likely. There are terrain, visibility and weapon range factors. Even in a desert environment, like I trained in, sand dunes and elevation changes made it very difficult to keep constant surveillance on a target out to one mile. And, when one considers the terrain in Europe with the gentle undulations and other terrain features it becomes even more difficult to keep a target in ones vision. And, this does not take into account night turns! Remember, there were not that many thermal imaging equiped units in 1985 (mainly just the tank ones).

So, as stated earlier, ZOC's hinder the simulation at this scale. They encourage a player to deploy his forces in an unrealistic manner (i.e. a whole battalion massed in one hex and using firepower alone to control the adjacent hexes).

And, regarding a company being able to hold a hex, I would have the fatigue penalties removed. Next, as you probably know, we have had to make changes to the OOB to make it even feasible for the Soviets to launch an invasion. Territorial units are not represented in any significant amount; nor are REFORGER or other NATO reinforcements to their deployed armies; a surprise attack has to be made, which is very unlikely given the intelligence resources available to see an invasion in the making; and, the Warsaw Pact units have to be given better morale than they would likely have (who believes that the Czechs would even consider helping the Soviets invade?). But, that is why this game series is hypothetical or for the want of a better term, fiction. (And, I love it!)

While I would like to see the ZOC/Isolation rules changed, I realize that this is an unrealistic expectation based on how many games there are in the series and player indifference to changing it for the sake of making them a better simulation versus the fun games that they are. Basically, I am just airing my opinions for a dream game system.

Regards,
CptCav

[Glenn Saunders]

The platoon idea is a good thought but as Cav says the penalties as a platoon just gets worse than when it was a company.

What Penalities are these??

The only dfference I know of is the ZOC - and that is what I thought you wanted.

How easy would it be for HPS to make companys have no ZOC?

This is not an option - for a start I don't agree but even if I did, I know John would never go for it.

Glenn

[westkent5097]

If you want to turn off ZoC can you not just change the 0 at the end of line 6 in the PDT to a 1? (although this would negate bn ZoC too)

Is there any way to change or get around the company fatigue penalties? Editing individual companies as KG for instance or separating them out from under the umbrella of the battalion in the OOB? I'm new to this so don't have a very good understanding of the effects this all would have. I see in the stock DF'85 the Danes have mixed battalions of infantry and armor companies under a single battalion, but the designers have put the US M901-TOW coys for infantry battalions as companies outside the respective battalion organisation, so they seem to be going both routes.

I'm thinking about making an OOB with more realistic battlegroups and WarPac company formations rather than the monolithic battalion blocks in the stock game, so you'd have tank heavy, infantry heavy and balanced battle groups each in theory under a battalion command, with ancillaries such as organic recce platoons, ATGM platoons etc. I see something similar was done in Bulge '44 with the Wacht am Rhein (Herbstnebel) mod. Is something similar even possible in MC given the current game engine, and what would be the problems to overcome or live with?

Best regards,
Matthew

[Glenn Saunders]

Is there any way to change or get around the company fatigue penalties?

Sorry - no there is not

Glenn

[FLG]

I'm thinking about making an OOB with more realistic battlegroups and WarPac company formations rather than the monolithic battalion blocks in the stock game, so you'd have tank heavy, infantry heavy and balanced battle groups each in theory under a battalion command, with ancillaries such as organic recce platoons, ATGM platoons etc. I see something similar was done in Bulge '44 with the Wacht am Rhein (Herbstnebel) mod. Is something similar even possible in MC given the current game engine, and what would be the problems to overcome or live with?

It only takes me 4 to 6 hours to do a turn of the West Germany campaign at the moment. This could round it off to a solid 24 hours per turn. I should be able to churn one turn out 3 or 4 weeks. Which would put the entire campaign at just over 15 years.

I had better get started as soon as possible. How long will it take you to have the modded campaign ready. I'd like to finish the game before I retire. ;)

[Ricky B]

And it really isn't a penalty on companies as such. It is purely an impact issue of losses on smaller size unit, and assuming there are three companies, then the average fatigue for the 3 separate companies as a result of the losses is the same as if the battalion took the losses.

In other words, you have an infantry unit, 150 men per company, 450 in the bn. One company loses 15 men, it may take say 45 fatigue, and have 135 men left, or 90% of its manpower - and the 10% lost are likely to be a significant part of its leadership, which is what fatigue represents in part, according to the original game notes. The three companies would then have fatigue of 45, 0 and 0, for an average of 15 between the 3, and a total strength of 435. If it was the combined battalion, it would take 1/3 the fatigue, or 15, and have 435 men. Of the lost men, the same leaders are lost, but losing say 1 leader out of 9 is less damaging than for the specific company which lost 1 leader out of 3. And leader may be the company commander, or his platoon leaders, or other critical NCOs.

Anyway, it may not be an ideal way to represent things but it doesn't make sense to have the smaller company suffer the same fatigue as the combined battalion. I sure can't think of anything that is more reasonable, myself.

Rick

[Volcano Man]

On the one hand some are exploring the idea of companies to be weaker in the sense that they shouldn't have a ZOC; on the other hand we want them to be stronger and resist the higher accumulation of fatigue that company sized units gain(?).

Many rules exist to balance something else out, and these two rules specifically serve to balance each other in a way. Higher fatigue accumulation ensures that it makes more sense to fight as a battalion instead of sustaining continual high losses with a company. On the other hand, the ZOC ensures that a side can take this disadvantage into consideration and, if need be, split into companies to hold a broader front with ZOCs. This makes it such that units which split into companies inevitably give way to an attack, making it really only a viable tactic to delay, not hold, the enemy.

[Glenn Saunders]

Another way to look at things along the lne of what both Ed and Rick are saying is this.

Consider two hexes - both with West German Inf Btln in them. And both are facing a equal size\strength\Quality attacker.

Hex #1 has a Combined Btln
Hex #2 has the same Btln in three Coys.

If the game treated fire on the coys completely equally then when fire was taken with the same "Die Roll Result" killing "X" men with "Y" BF, if there was no Coy BF then the Btln would really be penalized because the entire unit is fired upon and suffers from the BF. While the hex with the 3 Coys would have two companies in PERFECT shape and one coy with the SAME BF as the BTLN.

This would mean we could and should completely remove combined units from the game because it really would be stupid to combine - right. I mean there would be no good reason the combine and plenty of reason it never combine.

This would lead to MORE counters to move around and it is just not good for the game or the series.

COYs n the Series came about when WIg Graves created the Normany 44 OOB with detail way beyond the original BTLN concept created by Greg Smith. The abilty to split off a COY for the Germans on the East Front was found to be ESSENTIAL when we made Khakov 42 as the game simply would not work for the Germans on defense - weak places in the line formed easily and lead to holes that didn't really happen. And the RUssian player walked through them.

I had a huge discussion with John Tiller on this as recently as when Minsk 42 was created. Here again German COYS were essential and I argued the BF penality made the historical German defense extremely difficult to simulate. John kept an open mind and created the optional rule "Quality Fatigue Modifier" to counter the effect.

So clearly we need coys, we need Coy BF. And while I don't want to discourage debate on the pros and cons of what you might like to see, I just want all to understand this is not something that you will see changed.

So, if you don't want your COYs to have ZOCs - make the Platoons. If you don't want the Coys or Platoons to have added BF try the Optional Qaulity Fatigue Modifier Rule.

This is an extremely flexibly system to work with. It can't do everything but it does do many things and fairly nicely. But it is a game after all and that COYS have ZOC might be a side effect we have to live with just like ONE SIDE MOVES all units and the other side sits and does nothing. Then the other side moves. I mean how realistic is that?

So I would recommend folks try to keep things in perspective. The game just can't do everything.

Glenn

[Glenn Saunders]

Another way to look at things along the lne of what both Ed and Rick are saying is this.

Consider two hexes - both with West German Inf Btln in them. And both are facing a equal size\strength\Quality attacker.

Hex #1 has a Combined Btln
Hex #2 has the same Btln in three Coys.

If the game treated fire on the coys completely equally then when fire was taken with the same "Die Roll Result" killing "X" men with "Y" BF, if there was no Coy BF then the Btln would really be penalized because the entire unit is fired upon and suffers from the BF. While the hex with the 3 Coys would have two companies in PERFECT shape and one coy with the SAME BF as the BTLN.

This would mean we could and should completely remove combined units from the game because it really would be stupid to combine - right. I mean there would be no good reason the combine and plenty of reason it never combine.

This would lead to MORE counters to move around and it is just not good for the game or the series.

COYs n the Series came about when WIg Graves created the Normany 44 OOB with detail way beyond the original BTLN concept created by Greg Smith. The abilty to split off a COY for the Germans on the East Front was found to be ESSENTIAL when we made Kharkov 42 as the game simply would not work for the Germans defenser having only Btlns. Weak places in the line formed easily and lead to holes that didn't really happen. And the Russian player walked through them. The smulation broke down.

I had a huge discussion with John Tiller as recently on this topic when Minsk 44 was created. Here again German COYS were essential and I argued the BF penality made the historical German defense extremely difficult to simulate. John kept an open mind and created the optional rule "Quality Fatigue Modifier" to counter the effect I complained about. This worked because the Germans troops we still able to give the Red Army a sprited defense even though they were vastly outnumbered - so the had to be better troops!

So clearly we need coys, and we need Coy BF. And while I don't want to discourage debate on the pros and cons of what you might like to see, I just want all to understand this is ***NOT*** something that you will see changed by the developers!

So, if you don't want your COYs to have ZOCs - make them Platoons. If you don't want the Coys or Platoons to have added BF try the Optional Qaulity Fatigue Modifier Rule.

This is an extremely flexibly system to work with - probably more flexibly than any other game series and system I know of. But it can't do everything. However it does do many things fairly nicely. But it is a game after all and that COYS have ZOC might be a side effect we have to live with just like we have all learned to live with ONE SIDE MOVES all units and the other side sits and does nothing - just watches. Then the other side moves. I mean how realistic is that?

So I would recommend folks try to keep things in perspective. The game just can't do everything.

Glenn