Do we have too much control over fire in PzC, what’s your opinion?

[Mr Grumpy]

In PzC we have two different sets of rules covering the fire of direct weapons, indirect artillery and air strikes, for the purposes of this post I am referring to the titles that don’t use the alternate fire rules as default (so all the titles apart from F40, T41 & N44), I have long wondered if the rules covering direct fire, arty & airstrikes give us to much control over which unit can be targeted in a stack of multiple units and if the alternate fire rules actually represent a more realistic representation of WW2 combat?

So what is the issue with the default rules?
Well in most cases you have to disrupt all your opponents units before launching an assault and to achieve this we all use direct fire, arty fire & air strikes, the issue I have is that when a 1km hex contains multiple units we have the “god like” ability to seek out the undisrupted units and concentrate all our direct/arty/airstrike fire on just those units until we achieve the perfect situation, does this represent the abilities of troops in WW2 with the weapon technology available or do the Alternate Fire rules represent a more accurate depiction where the fire effects is spread amongst a random number of the units in the hex and in the case of the Alternate arty/airstrike rule you cannot target a particular unit and the proportional size of the units in the target hex is also taken into account when allocating losses?
Of course this can work the other way round and a defender cannot direct all his arty/airstrike fire against undisrupted attacking units also.

There is another case for using the alternate fire rules, it is accepted by most players that the defender is at a disadvantage in PzC, one of the reasons for this is that an attacker can stack a huge amount of units in an adjacent hex providing additional direct fire and assault troops without any penalty for the stacking density, when using the Alternate arty & airstrike rule the more troops/vehicles/guns stacked in a hex the greater the losses to arty & airstrikes which also seems to me to be logical.

So what do we think, do we need to lose some control or do the default fire rules work OK for you?

Having got used to total control of our fire can we now do without it and not get frustrated with the random nature of the results?

And of course would the use of these different rules unbalance scenarios designed with the default fire rules (check this recent thread by Strela Alt arty thread )

As an aside I would like to say that I think the Alternate direct fire rule (that still allows you to target a particular unit and does not take the proportional size of units into account when allocating losses) would work better if its effects were the same as the Alternate arty/airstrike rule, however in its present form it still may represent more accurately the effects of WW2 weapon systems.

Any views out there…………..:chin:

[Dog Soldier]

I have long wondered if the rules covering direct fire, arty & airstrikes give us to much control over which unit can be targeted in a stack of multiple units and if the alternate fire rules actually represent a more realistic representation of WW2 combat?

So what is the issue with the default rules?
Well in most cases you have to disrupt all your opponents units before launching an assault and to achieve this we all use direct fire, arty fire & air strikes, the issue I have is that when a 1km hex contains multiple units we have the “god like” ability to seek out the undisrupted units and concentrate all our direct/arty/airstrike fire on just those units until we achieve the perfect situation, does this represent the abilities of troops in WW2 with the weapon technology available or do the Alternate Fire rules represent a more accurate depiction where the fire effects is spread amongst a random number of the units in the hex and in the case of the Alternate arty/airstrike rule you cannot target a particular unit and the proportional size of the units in the target hex is also taken into account when allocating losses?

This is how I see it from many years of cardboard and PC gaming.

Hex based, turn driven game theory has always assumed the hex grid is a tool for the approximate location of a unit.
ZOC theory in hexagonal war games has assumed that the unit controls the hex it is in and the six hexes touching the occupied hex.
Taken together these fundamentals of hexagonal war gaming imply a single unit could really be in any of the seven hexes. Thus a stack is not a dog pile (just had to use that term ) but a representation of units in the seven hex area.

Now add in the idea of a third dimension, time as in two hour turns and one could suppose that not all units in a stack are necessarily spotted or even present in the target hex when any one artillery, air strike, or direct fire attack is made.

The alt fire rules mentioned in this thread consider these factors of hex and turn based games to be compressed due to the congested nature of the terrain for that particular battle.
The alt fire rules actually do target the unit you pick in the Target Dialog box, but also spread collateral damage to the other units. this is to simulte the tight quarters of the terrain.
At least that explains the hedgerows in N44 and northern France in F40. T41 is a game I have not really played. IIRC the designer used the alt fire rules to offset the very small units used in the game. Other wise the small units would be vaporized like so many insects being stomped on every turn. not much fun to play in that case.

I always thought PzC should be adapted to a WEGO system. That way, you never really know if the units you were attacking would stand fast, retreat on contact, be reinforced just before the assault goes in, or even attack you first to spoil your attack. Would the defenders hold fire until the assault or be under orders to fire first?
Defensive artillery fire could then be allocated and the attacker could not adjust in mid turn for it, he would just have to anticipated it and allocated sufficient forces to get the job done.

A little more FOW would be helpful. Looking at a unit that is static in a turn based system really is the problem in defending in PzC. Too much information is available for the experienced player. How about units which disrupt, but are not really disrupted? This would simulate a friendly unit reporting the enemy is pinned when they really were not. The reverse could be true also. A small percentage chance of this happening would go a long way in helping out a defense. Attackers would not be certain, though reasonably sure the enemy was sufficiently softened up before making an assault. Assaults were always dangerous things in WW2.

Anyhow, I have rambled a little off topic. Hope this is food for a thoughtful discussion.

Dog Soldier

[Mr Grumpy]

Thanks Brian a very interesting post with some points i had not considered, i have to agree more FOW would really help the defender in PzC.

The alt fire rules actually do target the unit you pick in the Target Dialogue box, but also spread collateral damage to the other units.

This is only true of the Direct fire alternate rule, the alternate arty and alternate airstrike rules do not offer a dialogue box and affect units at random and by unit size, in this way these two rules differ from the direct fire rule in a very subtle way, i had to play around with T41 with FOW off for quite a while before i discovered this fact. :)

[Al]

I really don't have anything to add to the points already made by Foul & DS other than that I agree with what they're saying. I always found it a bit difficult to justify picking one specific target out the possibly many units occupying a hex - especially regarding indirect fire. Those targets usually are either the high-value units, such as AT or regular artillery or those units that remain undisrupted; as if the attacker is able to tell his units that the 1st battalion in hex x,y is disrupted so leave him alone, let's concentrate on the 2nd battalion in the same hex x,y.

With justification, some would say that British & US artillery fire control was so good that they "could" pinpoint one target in a hex. In the mid-80's I served for a short time in a Nat'l Guard 8" SP Howitzer unit & it was quite amazing the accuracy that could be achieved with those big guns using fire control methods that really hadn't changed a lot since WW2. (Remember this was pre-GPS days!) Since PzC is an either/or situation in regards to Alt fire rules I would submit that UK/US artillery units would rate a quality rating one/two levels higher than their infantry & armor counterparts - if the Alt fire rules are used.

In spite of all that I have rambled on about the scenarios were designed with certain Opt Rules to be used or not so the risk is run of un-balancing the game. In most all the PBEM I have played I just go with the rules suggested. However, I still do play against the AI & in those games I use Opt rules that I think are more "realistic" - all the Alt fire rules, QFM, artillery setup, night fatigue, recon spotting & limited air recon. In those games I haven't really noticed that "yea these really help one side of the other" but then again, it is against the AI.

One of these days soon when the distractions are fewer maybe I can come to a more definitive perspective on the use & effect of Alt fire rules but for now these views are just my .02 :soap:

[Ricky B]

Good points all. I can see both sets of rules being to an extent realistic, but for the east front, at least, tend toward thinking that the alt fire rules, or at least for arty, could be more realistic, IF the scenarios are setup to work well with that rule set. Being able to pinpoint specific units is an extreme, but the random spread of losses against a stack is a bit far the other way.

However, the density impact on losses under the alt artillery rule seems very correct when fighting on the east front, but to use it requires that the scenario be designed for it or it just won't work. I always raise this example - I played a Kharkov campaign where my opponent chose the alt fire rules and we quit within 15 turns or so as his Soviet losses were immense, fairly realistically, but he was unable to hurt my Axis forces, making it unwinnable for the Soviets as they could barely dent the German lines.

So a well designed scenario would work well with the alt fire rules, and I think it could be more realistic overall, but the scenario/firepower values must be designed for the rules too.

Rick

[Bacillus98]

I have long wondered if the rules covering direct fire, arty & airstrikes give us to much control over which unit can be targeted in a stack of multiple units and if the alternate fire rules actually represent a more realistic representation of WW2 combat?

So what is the issue with the default rules?
Well in most cases you have to disrupt all your opponents units before launching an assault and to achieve this we all use direct fire, arty fire & air strikes, the issue I have is that when a 1km hex contains multiple units we have the “god like” ability to seek out the undisrupted units and concentrate all our direct/arty/airstrike fire on just those units until we achieve the perfect situation, does this represent the abilities of troops in WW2 with the weapon technology available or do the Alternate Fire rules represent a more accurate depiction where the fire effects is spread amongst a random number of the units in the hex and in the case of the Alternate arty/airstrike rule you cannot target a particular unit and the proportional size of the units in the target hex is also taken into account when allocating losses?

This is how I see it from many years of cardboard and PC gaming.

Hex based, turn driven game theory has always assumed the hex grid is a tool for the approximate location of a unit.
ZOC theory in hexagonal war games has assumed that the unit controls the hex it is in and the six hexes touching the occupied hex.
Taken together these fundamentals of hexagonal war gaming imply a single unit could really be in any of the seven hexes. Thus a stack is not a dog pile (just had to use that term ) but a representation of units in the seven hex area.

Now add in the idea of a third dimension, time as in two hour turns and one could suppose that not all units in a stack are necessarily spotted or even present in the target hex when any one artillery, air strike, or direct fire attack is made.

The alt fire rules mentioned in this thread consider these factors of hex and turn based games to be compressed due to the congested nature of the terrain for that particular battle.
The alt fire rules actually do target the unit you pick in the Target Dialog box, but also spread collateral damage to the other units. this is to simulte the tight quarters of the terrain.
At least that explains the hedgerows in N44 and northern France in F40. T41 is a game I have not really played. IIRC the designer used the alt fire rules to offset the very small units used in the game. Other wise the small units would be vaporized like so many insects being stomped on every turn. not much fun to play in that case.

I always thought PzC should be adapted to a WEGO system. That way, you never really know if the units you were attacking would stand fast, retreat on contact, be reinforced just before the assault goes in, or even attack you first to spoil your attack. Would the defenders hold fire until the assault or be under orders to fire first?
Defensive artillery fire could then be allocated and the attacker could not adjust in mid turn for it, he would just have to anticipated it and allocated sufficient forces to get the job done.

A little more FOW would be helpful. Looking at a unit that is static in a turn based system really is the problem in defending in PzC. Too much information is available for the experienced player. How about units which disrupt, but are not really disrupted? This would simulate a friendly unit reporting the enemy is pinned when they really were not. The reverse could be true also. A small percentage chance of this happening would go a long way in helping out a defense. Attackers would not be certain, though reasonably sure the enemy was sufficiently softened up before making an assault. Assaults were always dangerous things in WW2.

Anyhow, I have rambled a little off topic. Hope this is food for a thoughtful discussion.

Dog Soldier

A WEGO system would be fantastic!

[Strela]

Ignoring the day dreaming of a revised system (WEGO etc). Glenn covered off John T's rationale for not going that path in a post not long ago.

I am in full agreement with Ricky B that a number of the Alt fire rules have a place as LONG as the scenario is designed for it.

I am a big supporter of the Alt artillery rule for the east front as it really forces the player to think twice before over-massing his troops. It also nicely differentiates the German vs Soviet artillery but does require some PDT changes. I really believe that the default rules give too much flexibility to the player as laid out by Foul. Using the alt artillery rule also speeds up play with a single shot per unit.

I have only tried the alt infantry and alt air rules briefly and really can't give much comment here. I did not particularly like the alt infantry fire rule but need to revisit it.

The other thing that should be mentioned is that the editor gives us a huge amount of flexibility. I am currently working on a scenario that uses some revised PDT values that forces units to stay on the road network due to the difficulty of moving overland in snow unless tracked. All of a sudden, intersections, villages etc are key points to defend and hanging flanks can be left when facing infantry away from the road network. All done with a few changes in the PDT file.

So in summary I like the alt artillery rule but it has to be factored into the scenario victory point totals and the scenario overall. There is no point stopping the attacker dead at the first defence line never to move forward again.....

[Mike Bowen]

I agree with most of what has been posted. I did many years ago suggest that rules could apply per side. So for example artillery set up might apply to the Russians in 41 but not the Germans. A similar thing could apply for firing.

The point upon the attacker being able to hit the undisrupted defender I can accept on the basis that the defending commander has put his undisrupted units in the front line and so the attacker is fighting them.

That applies for in my view to direct fire artillery and air attacks by specialist aircraft eg Typhoons others should use the alt rules to carpet bomb but hit the hex.

I also think artillery fire on spotted units is ok for similar reasons they are spotted.

Mike

[James Ward]

Couldn't the calculation for losses be modified for the Alt fire rules for indirect fire and air to make them the standard rule? I can see direct fire being able to target a specific unit but for indirect fire attackijng the entire hex makes more sense.

[P.Ako]

A WEGO system would be fantastic!

What's a WEGO system?