What Huib (and others maybe) don't like about PzC

[Dog Soldier]

Perhaps engineering duties like clearing mines and blowing AT ditches should be an event that can not be certain. Engineer moves into minefield, then clearing the minefield could happen on the next turn most of the time, but not always.

1. Now one has to consider, was there effective DF to change the base probability of clearing the mines?
2. Was there sufficient bombardment of enemy positions that could fire on the engineers to reduce the first effect above?
3. Was there sufficient cover fire from a unit in a hex adjacent to the engineer.
4. Would the covering fire be more effective if the covering unit stacks with the engineer in the mine field hex?
And so on and so forth....

This is dipping deep into the tactical realm of an operational game engine. The fudging of minefield removal has a bad side effect, but so does a solution of requiring a certain size unit to do the job. With such a rule in place would it be gamey to attempt to place enough fire on the engineers to tip the unit's strength to 1-3 men below the "magic" number to prevent clearance?

Dog Soldier

[Liebchen]

I remember an old game Patton vs. Rommel where u would have to rotate the direction of the front on the units to which way they where facing and if u got attacked from a different direction u were penalized. It would be nice not having the 360* defence.

I remember that game. It was pretty damned good, if limited in scope.

[JonS1]

1. Now one has to consider, was there effective DF to change the base probability of clearing the mines?
2. Was there sufficient bombardment of enemy positions that could fire on the engineers to reduce the first effect above?
3. Was there sufficient cover fire from a unit in a hex adjacent to the engineer.
4. Would the covering fire be more effective if the covering unit stacks with the engineer in the mine field hex?

Er .. why? All those things are already totally under the control of the two players. If I chose not to fire at and disrupt that damn engineer trying to breach my minefield, it's my own damn fault. The game shouldn't protect me from my own stupidity. Similarly, if I send the sappers in to clear a field without providing sufficient covering fire to suppress the defenders (i.e., soak up fire and/or disrupt defenders in the local area) again it's my own damn fault. It's my choice to try things that way, and the game shouldn't try to protect me from myself.

The fudging of minefield removal has a bad side effect, but so does a solution of requiring a certain size unit to do the job. With such a rule in place would it be gamey to attempt to place enough fire on the engineers to tip the unit's strength to 1-3 men below the "magic" number to prevent clearance?

Only if the player firing on the engineer knows how many men are in the sapper unit. Is there anyone that doesn't play with FOW?

Besides, why would you making the chance to clear dependant on unit size? Surely proportional to unit size is a better way to go. That way inflicting cas on the sappers reduces their chances, even if it doesn't disrupt them, but never completely stops them.

Thus, FOR EXAMPLE;
* Unit of strength 400+ = 100%, 300 = 75%, 200 = 50% [note 1]
* Qual A = 110%, B = 100%, C = 90%, D = 80%, E = 70%, F and lower = 60%
* Fatigue 0 = 100%, fatigue 100 = 80%, fatigue 200 = 60%, fatigue 300 = 40% [note 1]
* Clear terrain = 100%, Woods = 70%, broken = 90%, urban = 60%
* Obstacle = 100%, level 1 minefield = 90%, level 2 = 80%, level 3 = 70%

So, a unit of str 450, of qual A, no fatigue, in clear terrain, trying to remove an obstacle has a chance of:
1.0 * 1.1 * 1.0 * 1.0 * 1.0 = 1.1 = 100%
In other words, it will clear the obstacle.

On the other hand, a unit of str 180 (be it a single coy, or a heavily reduced bn), quality C, with 150 fatigue, clearing in woods, and a level 3 minefield has a chance of:
180/400 * 0.9 * 0.7 * 0.7 * 0.7 = 0.139 = 13.9% chance.
So a pretty low per-turn chance, due mainly to the small unit size (the players fault for sending a boy to do a mans job - a unit size 400+ in the same circumstances would have a 31% chance, while an unfatigued unit sized 400+ would have a 44% chance), but it should clear a single mine layer within 8 turns, and after that speed up since thinner mines are easier.

Imagine how much more attractive it'd be to lay minefields with those kinds of %s.

Penetrating fields and obstacles could/would/should still be automatic.

Regards
Jon

Note 1: could also be non-linear.

[Huib Versloot]

I would say, given the very small size of the map, perhaps Huib can post the "major issues" with the map, something that he may consider the minimal corrections to make it respectable, and maybe they could be addressed? Who knows, but it could be a possibility. :)

I will do that, but allow me some time. I would be fair to illustrate it with screenshots from period maps and the same areas in the game map. This involves some time consuming work like scanning, scaling & uploading it on photobucket or something similar.

Huib

[Glenn Saunders]

I will do that, but allow me some time. I would be fair to illustrate it with screenshots from period maps and the same areas in the game map. This involves some time consuming work like scanning, scaling & uploading it on photobucket or something similar.

Huib

Huib - it was Ed who suggested this - but I am not sure he was aware that this map was created by John Tiller, not my partner who normally makes maps.

We do not have the Source map John Tiller used to create the map and you previously sent me the image where the hex on your map was village and ours was apparently clear (Tiller check that one for me). At that time John decided to stay with his original period source map. I say this because I really doubt he will change this game map and I would rather save you the hassle rather than have you go to a lot of work for nothing.

That said - it is up to you if you want to do it. However I would recommend if you want Tiller to see what you prepare, sent it to HPS Support and they can pass it on for you. Of course you can post whatever you like for images here for all to see, too but John doesn't respond to posts on forms so the only way he will see your stuff is if you sent it to support at HPS.

Glenn

[Dog Soldier]

1. Now one has to consider, was there effective DF to change the base probability of clearing the mines?
2. Was there sufficient bombardment of enemy positions that could fire on the engineers to reduce the first effect above?
3. Was there sufficient cover fire from a unit in a hex adjacent to the engineer.
4. Would the covering fire be more effective if the covering unit stacks with the engineer in the mine field hex?

Er .. why? All those things are already totally under the control of the two players. If I chose not to fire at and disrupt that damn engineer trying to breach my minefield, it's my own damn fault. The game shouldn't protect me from my own stupidity. Similarly, if I send the sappers in to clear a field without providing sufficient covering fire to suppress the defenders (i.e., soak up fire and/or disrupt defenders in the local area) again it's my own damn fault. It's my choice to try things that way, and the game shouldn't try to protect me from myself.

Seems you missed my point completely JonS1, so I will try to explain again. If one would consider a variable mine removal algorithm, then what factors would affect the basic calculation for the variable mine removal? I was not referring to the current state where minefield removal is a certainty unless you disrupt the engineers. Your discussion should not start from the premise that others are "stupid". Finally, there are far better tactics to stop engineers from clearing a minefield than direct fire on the engineers.

The fudging of minefield removal has a bad side effect, but so does a solution of requiring a certain size unit to do the job. With such a rule in place would it be gamey to attempt to place enough fire on the engineers to tip the unit's strength to 1-3 men below the "magic" number to prevent clearance?

Only if the player firing on the engineer knows how many men are in the sapper unit. Is there anyone that doesn't play with FOW?

Once again JonS1 you missed my point completely. I will try to elaborate for you so you do not draw the wrong conclusion again.
Any good player with experience does not need FOW turned off to estimate with reasonable accuracy the strength and condition of the enemy units which are in LOS.

Besides, why would you making the chance to clear dependant on unit size? Surely proportional to unit size is a better way to go. That way inflicting cas on the sappers reduces their chances, even if it doesn't disrupt them, but never completely stops them.

Thus, FOR EXAMPLE;
* Unit of strength 400+ = 100%, 300 = 75%, 200 = 50% [note 1]
* Qual A = 110%, B = 100%, C = 90%, D = 80%, E = 70%, F and lower = 60%
* Fatigue 0 = 100%, fatigue 100 = 80%, fatigue 200 = 60%, fatigue 300 = 40% [note 1]
* Clear terrain = 100%, Woods = 70%, broken = 90%, urban = 60%
* Obstacle = 100%, level 1 minefield = 90%, level 2 = 80%, level 3 = 70%

So, a unit of str 450, of qual A, no fatigue, in clear terrain, trying to remove an obstacle has a chance of:
1.0 * 1.1 * 1.0 * 1.0 * 1.0 = 1.1 = 100%
In other words, it will clear the obstacle.

On the other hand, a unit of str 180 (be it a single coy, or a heavily reduced bn), quality C, with 150 fatigue, clearing in woods, and a level 3 minefield has a chance of:
180/400 * 0.9 * 0.7 * 0.7 * 0.7 = 0.139 = 13.9% chance.
So a pretty low per-turn chance, due mainly to the small unit size (the players fault for sending a boy to do a mans job - a unit size 400+ in the same circumstances would have a 31% chance, while an unfatigued unit sized 400+ would have a 44% chance), but it should clear a single mine layer within 8 turns, and after that speed up since thinner mines are easier.

Imagine how much more attractive it'd be to lay minefields with those kinds of %s.

Penetrating fields and obstacles could/would/should still be automatic.

Regards
Jon

Note 1: could also be non-linear.

I would tend to believe that engineers sent to clear minefields prior to a main assault were small in size, probably no bigger than company size. Removing the mines was not a matter of getting all of them. Neither were the mines scattered through out the entire hex. Clearing lanes meant marking the safe route through the mines as much as actually lifting selected mines to create the path(s) for the assaults. Minefields channel attacks, they do not stop them cold. We both know this.
Thus needing to send in a 400+ man unit to do the "man's job" would be asking for a concentrated artillery barrage that would slaughter the dense pack of 400+ men. Larger units usually take larger casulaties in this game engine, all other things being equal.

In the end it just comes down to how much complexity is adding to the game or detracting from it.

Dog Soldier

[JonS1]

Seems you missed my point completely JonS1

Possibly. That'd be because of your list. All the factors you listed are already in the game, and are already under the control of the opposing players. Why would you duplicate their effects by making them a factor of a 'minefield-clearance-algorithm'?

Your discussion should not start from the premise that others are "stupid".

I agree. That shouldn't be necessary. Experience is, however, a remorseless teacher.

Finally, there are far better tactics to stop engineers from clearing a minefield than direct fire on the engineers.

In-game, or IRL? AFAIK, in the game currently, the only ways to prevent an opposing sapper from clearing mines are
a) preventing them from entering the mined hex
b) disrupting them once they're in it.

I suppose one might add
c) assaulting the mined hex with the opposing engineers in it.

But that's it. Currently, any volume of fire resulting in any number of cas and fatigue will have zero (0) effect on clearance unless you disrupt the sappers. Or you assault them out of the hex.

Once again JonS1 you missed my point completely. I will try to elaborate for you so you do not draw the wrong conclusion again.
Any good player with experience does not need FOW turned off to estimate with reasonable accuracy the strength and condition of the enemy units which are in LOS.

Yes. Quite. A blinding flash of the obvious there, thank you. However, an 'estimate' with 'reasonable accuracy' is something very different to a "gamey attempt to place enough fire on the engineers to tip the unit's strength to 1-3 men below the 'magic' number to prevent clearance". Unless the 'magic number' was close to 100 or 10. But that would be stupid.

You also nicely elided the comment about dependent-on-unit-size vs. affected-by-unit-size. Well done. 'Estimating with reasonable accuracy' is critical for gamey tactics if you go the dependant route. If you got the affected route it's a nice to know in terms of overall intelligence, but 1-3 cas more or less is going to have negligible effect on a given clearance attempt. With the affected route, there is no 'magic number', other than zero (0).

I would tend to believe that engineers sent to clear minefields prior to a main assault were small in size, probably no bigger than company size.

I would tend to believe that you have no idea what the words FOR EXAMPLE mean. Make the 100% figure 200 men, or 179, or 83, or 1852. The specific size doesn't matter. It is simply lining engineering tasks up with the way fires are currently handled - all else being equal, larger units (up to a certain maximum) will be more effective than smaller units.

In the end it just comes down to how much complexity is adding to the game or detracting from it.

True. Let's go back to first principles: is double dipping adding to the game, or detracting from it?

[Huib Versloot]

Huib - it was Ed who suggested this - but I am not sure he was aware that this map was created by John Tiller, not my partner who normally makes maps.

We do not have the Source map John Tiller used to create the map and you previously sent me the image where the hex on your map was village and ours was apparently clear (Tiller check that one for me). At that time John decided to stay with his original period source map. I say this because I really doubt he will change this game map and I would rather save you the hassle rather than have you go to a lot of work for nothing.

That said - it is up to you if you want to do it. However I would recommend if you want Tiller to see what you prepare, sent it to HPS Support and they can pass it on for you. Of course you can post whatever you like for images here for all to see, too but John doesn't respond to posts on forms so the only way he will see your stuff is if you sent it to support at HPS.

Glenn

I'll follow your advice here and will send a mail to HPS. I will also follow Ed's advice to bring these suggestions for improvement down to a few main points. My guess is that JT has used an Allied period source map. These are usually printed in bi- or tri color (black & white + green for woods and blue for water). Unless you are familiar with Dutch language you'll miss several terrain types because they show up "white" on these maps, which matches exactly with what happened on the game map: clear hexes while there is in reality uncultivated rough moorland or marshes.

The game map:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/79404d87-26b3-...n-game-map

example of a full color map (moorland etc is pinkish color)
http://www.esnips.com/doc/71483c3c-1ab2-.../Eindhoven
Click this link for a smaller version on photobucket:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn213...nklein.jpg

Example of a bi-color Allied map:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/06a21914-ba58-...6d6/Arnhem
click this link for a smaller version on photobucket:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn213...mklein.jpg
(note that the DZ Ginkel heath moorland shows as white/clear here while in fact it is rough, although the Ginkel heath is less rough than the moorlands south of the river)

The second issue is the elevations: mainly the fact that the Groesbeek heights extend eastward through the Reichswald. The Reichswald has several hills that are over 80 meters. Kleve is a big city partly on high ground (very steep there). Also a part of the Reichswald is missing (namely the large chunk called Klosterhufe that was cut down after the war) example: http://www.esnips.com/doc/9b913c56-eb7d-...5596/Kleve
click this link for a smaller version on photobucket:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn213...eklein.jpg

The last issue is 'choices': the are some important wooded areas missing near Hell's Highway at Koevering hamlet. These woods are about 1km2 but perhaps a little smaller that's why they may have been left out? But since everybody who was fighting there; both Americans and Germans dug in just there, they would have to be represented. After all: the Waal is also not 1 km wide but it's perfectly understandable that the choice was made to make it a full hex river anyway. I will post an image of these woods later.
---> this is example of these woods. This time taken from a modern map but the woods themselves are still the same size and shape (the foxholes are still there too) http://home.hetnet.nl/~kversl35/huib/wandelroute.htm
(the orange arrows are inter active)
In the game this would be about hex 14,64 15,65 possibly 16,65 as well. The first hex is the "Eerdsche Bergen". This area is known in the history of the 101st as "the battle of the sand dunes". The other 2 hexes are the "Logtenburg woods" where the Germans dug in with field of fire over Hell's Highway from both sides.

If these adjustments could be implemented MG44 could turn into a perfect game. Apart from the map examples above I also have the full 1:50.000 German set in full color should they be needed to make the adjustments.

Huib

[Tortue Agile]

Can't see the images :(

could you use a website more open (not requiring to sign up for it)? like http://imageshack.us/ ?

Thanks in advance.

[timshin42]

:thumbs_up:Thanks Huib,

Easy to register on esnips.:smoke: The maps are very enlightening, but for some reason the "Full Color Map" would not appear for me in esnips.