Question to Glenn S regarding AT units

[Al]

I've commented before in AT gun threads so I have read with interest what has been posted.

In response to VM's post I noticed that in his MG44_Alt, for instance, he raised the defensive value of AT guns. I thought this was in response to AT units being decimated when going into T-mode while trying to retreat in the face of enemy fire. Possibly I have misinterpreted his intentions although I think this was a good idea.

Since this thread started, I pulled out a book on US AT guns I read a passage where (some) US troops complained when AT guns were upgraded to 57mm from 37mm because, even at that relatively small size, the guns were too heavy to move by hand. Hmmmm, I thought.

Regarding the movement and combat use of AT units in PzC I have come up with what I think is adequate way for their use. In the offense I keep AT units on roads, if possible, and only 1 - 2 hexes behind the frontline troops. I use the front line units to draw the enemy's fire & then move the AT units up to the front line, hoping that I have drawn off most, if not all of the enemy OP fire. This moving up process involves taking the AT units in and out of T-mode frequently & does take some extra time & patience. If you can pull it off, it does work well to get some AT assets in line.

On the defense, I basically reverse the process. Draw off the enemy's OP fire, put the AT units in T-mode & move them out. Of course, in both these methods chances are one is going to take some, maybe significant losses. The player just has to decide whether it's worth the risk. I will just say, however, that I have had worthwhile success using this method. I hope that I just explained it well enough to get my example across. Even with the success I have had, the experience usually reminds me why towed AT guns did not last long beyond the end of WWII. They were tactically just too clumsy.

In any case, I guess I'm satisfied with the current situation regarding towed AT units although I can sympathize with other's frustrations. I'm going to be at TC-III & I hope this does become a topic of discussion. Fascinating stuff!

:soap:

[Volcano Man]

In response to VM's post I noticed that in his MG44_Alt, for instance, he raised the defensive value of AT guns. I thought this was in response to AT units being decimated when going into T-mode while trying to retreat in the face of enemy fire. Possibly I have misinterpreted his intentions although I think this was a good idea.

Yes, you are correct, I raised the AT gun ratings for that purpose (and other reasons of course -- to make them more durable when they are in their defensive positions). It does seem to work reasonably well in allowing you to redeploy them.

---

I think the person you need to convince on this is John. One would need to make the case that the German 88 would not be affected because these could be classed a HAA, but there were 88's that were mounted as an AT Gun, and Brit 17 Pdr ect - they are all big Guns and John doesn't or didn't agree that they should be able to moveone Hex at a cost of all MPs.

Would he reconsider? I don't know. But as I said, Tillercon would be as good a place as any to try - as timing is everything when it comes to changes.

Glenn

I am not sure if this is addressed to me or not (it must be since I mentioned the one hex move option). Anyway, if so, that is only ONE option and probably not the best one. If you read the second half of my post, there is another (probably more realistic and more intelligent) option. I guess it gets lost in the volume of text.

At any rate, I am not going to bother convincing anyone of anything, I am not that worried about it. I figure if people want it bad enough then the game designers of MC and PzC would bring it up, or someone will bring it up at Tillercon 3. I was simply throwing out the old idea in the first post, and then when it was questioned because of what I meant by the scale, I attempted to explain what I meant but more importantly (in the second half of that post) I offered my own opinion of how such a rule should work (the automatic T mode move). Other than that, I am not that worried about it.

[Glenn Saunders]

I think the person you need to convince on this is John.

I am not sure if this is addressed to me or not (it must be since I mentioned the one hex move option).

Naw Ed - wasn't directed to or at anybody.

To be honest - once athread get started I don't try to follow who said what - I just respond to all the input.

I also know John doesn't like the idea of moving AT guns and given that we're a couple months away from a meeting - if someone wants to raise this then maybe he would reconsider.

At any rate, I am not going to bother convincing anyone of anything, I am not that worried about it.

That where I am at too - I don't feel strong enough on this point to bring it up - but nor will I oppose it if people or parties decide they want to bring it up.

I see peoples POV but I also think there are a lot of large AT guns, and all their associated AMMO and such, ... well, I see Johns POV too.

Glenn

[Liquid_Sky]

Hmm...I am not sure that the guns themselves are the problem so much that being able to always target them is. For example, by Turn 248 if Normandy, the Allies have lost 2364 guns (3407 vps), and the Axis have lost 1108 guns (1432 vps).

Given a choice of targets, I tend to shoot my artillery et al. at the highest value targets. Mainly guns. I have to kill about 15 infantry to equal the same vp's of a single gun. So in any campaign game of any length, those losses will add up...and if I can hit his guns, while hiding mine, I will be ahead.

[Strela]

Glad to see I managed to get AT guns back into a forum thread. :)

As further explanation the genesis of my question came from the fact that mortars had this capability. I wonder what the rationale was to allow mortars to move the one hex? Particularly considering some of the large (120mm) calibres.

As a scenario designer my question was born from trying to simulate things that I believed could happen. The suggestion of light and heavy AT category would let the designer decide which gun could or couldn't take advantage of the one hex rule. Whether it was only up to a 37mm Gun or included 50mm piece's etc would be the scenario designers call.

It was never my intention to suggest that prior released scenarios need to be retrofitted or any other such thing. This was something that could be done for new scenarios or new interpretations such as VM's alt versions.

Ultimately, Glenn is right. JT makes the call on such things. I can do what I want right now by using the mortar class and satisfy my design bug - it just isn't as elegant as I would have liked!

Let the debate roll on.....

[Xaver]

Well, is hard find a good and realistic solution... here my 2 cents.

For AT (and for light arty even) units is interesting create a new rule called "disengage" with a % controled in PDT you can try to move the unit one hex to reguard without change formation expending 1/3 or 1/2 of action points in the proces, if all goes well you lose 1/3 or 1/2 of action points but your unit is 1 hex behind the line and you safe then (the great evasion hehehe) if the retreat fail you lose 1/3 or 1/2 of action points and are in the same situation. Here can influe if is a night turn, unit quality and nation %... can control it... what do you think about this???.

[Glenn Saunders]

Well, is hard find a good and realistic solution... here my 2 cents.

For AT (and for light arty even) units is interesting create a new rule called "disengage" with a % controled in PDT you can try to move the unit one hex to reguard without change formation expending 1/3 or 1/2 of action points in the proces, if all goes well you lose 1/3 or 1/2 of action points but your unit is 1 hex behind the line and you safe then (the great evasion hehehe) if the retreat fail you lose 1/3 or 1/2 of action points and are in the same situation. Here can influe if is a night turn, unit quality and nation %... can control it... what do you think about this???.

Actually - not to bad of an idea at all really.

Anyone think this is a dumb idea or a great idea??

Let me just say I've no idea how feasible it would be from a programming POV, but it might work.

Glenn

[Al]

Anyone think this is a dumb idea or a great idea??

I think it's an interesting idea but, like you, don't know what programming it would take to accomplish this.

Aside from VM's good idea of increasing the defense value of AT units, another possibility I've heard mentioned was increasing the hard attack value of infantry units - representing the attachment of regimetal or divisional AT assets directly to the infantry battalions. Of course, both of these ideas can be implemented through the editor.

[Mr Grumpy]

Well as Strela says maybe if Glenn and the guys at TC III can convince JT that there is a real need for a new category for AT guns, maybe he might consider making a change to the editor so that the stock OOB's stay as they are but the Modder's like Strela and Volcano Man can have the "move when deployed" AT gun ability in their Mod OOB's?

Not sure how much work this would be, but it would keep the stock scenarios the same (as JT wants) but allow other designers to go with the new feature for their scenarios!

[Volcano Man]

Well, is hard find a good and realistic solution... here my 2 cents.

For AT (and for light arty even) units is interesting create a new rule called "disengage" with a % controled in PDT you can try to move the unit one hex to reguard without change formation expending 1/3 or 1/2 of action points in the proces, if all goes well you lose 1/3 or 1/2 of action points but your unit is 1 hex behind the line and you safe then (the great evasion hehehe) if the retreat fail you lose 1/3 or 1/2 of action points and are in the same situation. Here can influe if is a night turn, unit quality and nation %... can control it... what do you think about this???.

Actually - not to bad of an idea at all really.

Anyone think this is a dumb idea or a great idea??

Let me just say I've no idea how feasible it would be from a programming POV, but it might work.

Glenn

Well, it is not a bad idea per se (call it "AT Gun Disengagement"), but there is a potential problem with this idea. Essentially it allows an AT gun unit to move (disengage) multiple times if each try is successful, since I think it would be difficult to restrict it to only the AT gun's first move. You also wouldn't want to restrict it to the AT gun's first action (ie. requiring that the unit must have full MPs to attempt the disengagement, because it makes it a one try thing, which of course leads to users most likely save/load until they are successful in the attempt).

It would probably be a better idea (if we are building upon that one) to instead say:

*PDT parameter "AT gun withdrawal" (%) determines probability of success
*Attempt to withdraw deployed AT guns costs 1/3 MPs
*If successful the AT gun moves into desired hex and is now in Travel Mode. and pays an additional MP cost for the terrain in the destination hex
*If the unit does not have enough MPs to enter the destination hex (or is incapable of entering the destination hex) then the move is prevented (the entire withdrawal attempt is not allowed)

All of this this ensures that the AT gun must now deploy out of Travel Mode again, by paying 1/3 of its movement value, if the user wants it to defend the hex it moved into, or it is stuck in that hex in T mode (very bad) on the opponents turn if it moved into a terrain type that caused an expense of a lot of MPs, or because the user expended a lot of MPs before the withdrawal. By having the AT gun in Travel Mode after the attempt, it also ensures that you can't just keep withdrawing again and again, thereby moving the AT gun unit two or three hexes while deployed -- it also creates a dilemma on when and where to do this. As an example of a dilemma, withdrawing into T mode and being stuck in the woods in T mode on the opponents turn is probably OK if it is a night turn, but not something you would want to do in a day turn.

Of course, this is essentially the same thing I said above in the second half of post #8 (see below the slashes), but with an added PDT probability of success value, which I am not sure if it is necessary as it just complicates things.

But anyway, if it is done any other way where the unit does not enter T mode once it withdraws, or if the unit does not pay the cost of the move into the new hex, then you have a gameplay problem wherein withdrawing the AT guns like this would actually be more efficient than doing a normal move (enter T mode, move away), that is if the AT gun unit is not paying for the cost of the move to the destination hex AND the AT gun unit is successful in the attempt.