• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
05-23-2010, 08:46 AM,
#1
c_Question Mark  What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
As most of us can't get to TC3 we will have to rely on the Blitz guys who are going to raise issues with JT, so what single feature would you like to be raised during the PzC/MC discussion session?? :chin:

I hate to bring up old chestnuts but the vulnerability of AT guns having to move in T mode is still top for me, i suspect JT thought this was fixed with the 50% loss retreat rule but i am afraid AT guns are still the unit of choice to dig IP's/trench's or to prevent existing fortifications becoming vacant, they just cost you too many VP points when you lose them to use them as regular front line units.

Whats your poison? I know it is hard but try to pick only one.....;)
Quote this message in a reply
05-23-2010, 02:06 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-23-2010, 02:13 PM by Bacillus98.)
#2
RE: What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
Issues for discussion in order of importance:

1.) AT guns in T-mode vulnerability issue.

2.) Selective targeting, why can the attacker select a particular unit in a stack to hit? Make it randomly distributed in regards to the stack without having to select an optional rule.

3.) Hidden disruption effects in FOW.

4.) This one has been explained to me before, but I am still irked by the way a unit can be surrounded via ZOC's with small units, such as a few tanks. It would be great to have a way for small amounts of units to be able to "squeeze" out of encirclements to come back as reinforcements to other units. I just don't see how 5 tanks can exert a ZOC effective 3 km and not have some units escape. I understand the ZOC is an abstraction, but perhaps a limit can be used to see if a unit is truly surrounded, say X amount of men or X amount of vehicles. Often I have tried a counterattack while being surrounded only to fail because my battalion of 400+ plus men can't get past 3 recon vehicles. Perhaps there is something I am missing here in a military sense why the game doesn't allow it, so I could be wrong in my above assessment of the situation.
Quote this message in a reply
05-23-2010, 08:21 PM,
#3
RE: What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
1 Please make engineers chances of doing something dependent on Size Fatigue and Morale (see post on mine clearing)

2 Deployed AT guns can spend all of their MA to move 1 hex. That may be open to abuse but as we have had no chance to test it perhaps make it an optional rule before a main engine change

3 Ability to build pillboxes bunkers etc with some units given enough time - Normandy the Germans built lines further back which appear in the Epson Scen but not the campaign.

4 Ability to have some bridges wired and some blowable by engineers at the moment its one or the other - In Minsk I would be doing a lot better if I could blow a bridge when I wanted to. (I know sour grapes etc). On a related point some of the older games Normandy in particular need bridging units added as in Normandy the German can cause game winning problems blowing bridges

5 Change it to we go...

6 Produce a new one once a month ;)
Quote this message in a reply
05-23-2010, 10:37 PM,
#4
RE: What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
(05-23-2010, 08:21 PM)Mike Bowen Wrote: 1 Please make engineers chances of doing something dependent on Size Fatigue and Morale (see post on mine clearing)

2 Deployed AT guns can spend all of their MA to move 1 hex. That may be open to abuse but as we have had no chance to test it perhaps make it an optional rule before a main engine change

3 Ability to build pillboxes bunkers etc with some units given enough time - Normandy the Germans built lines further back which appear in the Epson Scen but not the campaign.

4 Ability to have some bridges wired and some blowable by engineers at the moment its one or the other - In Minsk I would be doing a lot better if I could blow a bridge when I wanted to. (I know sour grapes etc). On a related point some of the older games Normandy in particular need bridging units added as in Normandy the German can cause game winning problems blowing bridges

5 Change it to we go...

6 Produce a new one once a month ;)

Number 6 would be great!
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2010, 01:24 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-24-2010, 01:24 AM by Crazy Dutch.)
#5
RE: What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
That Special Forces can do Recon.

So that whe can have LRRP units in the mods of the Danube Front 85 and other modern campaign series.
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2010, 02:58 AM,
#6
RE: What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
(05-23-2010, 10:37 PM)Bacillus98 Wrote:
(05-23-2010, 08:21 PM)Mike Bowen Wrote: 1 Please make engineers chances of doing something dependent on Size Fatigue and Morale (see post on mine clearing)

2 Deployed AT guns can spend all of their MA to move 1 hex. That may be open to abuse but as we have had no chance to test it perhaps make it an optional rule before a main engine change

3 Ability to build pillboxes bunkers etc with some units given enough time - Normandy the Germans built lines further back which appear in the Epson Scen but not the campaign.

4 Ability to have some bridges wired and some blowable by engineers at the moment its one or the other - In Minsk I would be doing a lot better if I could blow a bridge when I wanted to. (I know sour grapes etc). On a related point some of the older games Normandy in particular need bridging units added as in Normandy the German can cause game winning problems blowing bridges

5 Change it to we go...

6 Produce a new one once a month ;)

Number 6 would be great!
If only that were possible, but with designers working in their spare time creating new titles is a slow, stop/start process......
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2010, 07:17 AM,
#7
RE: What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
(05-23-2010, 02:06 PM)Bacillus98 Wrote: 4.) This one has been explained to me before, but I am still irked by the way a unit can be surrounded via ZOC's with small units, such as a few tanks. It would be great to have a way for small amounts of units to be able to "squeeze" out of encirclements to come back as reinforcements to other units. I just don't see how 5 tanks can exert a ZOC effective 3 km and not have some units escape. I understand the ZOC is an abstraction, but perhaps a limit can be used to see if a unit is truly surrounded, say X amount of men or X amount of vehicles. Often I have tried a counterattack while being surrounded only to fail because my battalion of 400+ plus men can't get past 3 recon vehicles. Perhaps there is something I am missing here in a military sense why the game doesn't allow it, so I could be wrong in my above assessment of the situation.

There are three different ways to set up ZOC. Tow are done through the pdt table. Look at the desert game titles for fluid ZOC that can be moved through at higher MP expense. The third way is by using the locking ZOC OR. But most people do not use that for PBEM.

As to the comment about a 400 man battalion not being able to assault a few A/C, I suppose that is why a reserve is needed. A few artillery bursts or an air strike in some game titles will disrupt or even clear those A/C off the board. An assault from the outside will spring you low morale (isolated, disrupted, low ammo) 400 man battalion. If the encircled battalion is not disrupted, it can help by joining the assault. In the early part of the war, or in the VM _alt scenarios, infantry have very little capability to deal with armor, so a few tanks or A/C could be a huge threat. A disrupted unit of any size would just sit tight and type for a rescue.
An extreme example would be the 1s British AB division at Arnhem. Weak SS infantry companies backed up by a small number of 20mm flak guns prevented an attack by an entire regiment of elite AB from breaking through to their comrades isolated at the Arnhem bridge.
In game terms this might look like a weak encirclement. Historically it did the job.
Another example would be in Korsun where the Germans evacuated the pocket. Axis units had to pass by a hill occupied by Russian tanks. The Axis units escaped. They were so shot up though as to be "eliminated" in game terms. They just were not effective for combat again. Many were disbanded and reorganized after the battle as the cadres were too small to be rebuilt.
When thinking about porous ZOC, one must consider the limits of game terms. Would the unit escaping encirclement be of any use for the remainder of the game. Elimination of a unit looks like a massacre to the last man, but in reality small groups do and can escape. But they can not form a unit that would have any value in game terms for the duration of the game.

Dog Soldier
Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.
- Wyatt Earp
Quote this message in a reply
05-25-2010, 11:35 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-26-2010, 01:06 AM by Taffy6.)
#8
RE: What would you ask JT to change if you are at TC3?
Moving on to MC. One big change I'd like to see has to do with OOB editing/ unit size/ fatigue. I don't know if this is possible with the game coding but....

In the Germany 85 games (FG85/NGP85/DF85) NATO units at the company level are facing WP units at the BN level.

The defensive NATO standard op-planning was (among other things) that a NATO mech infantry company team or tank company team (ie, company-sized tactical unit) was the fighting equivlent of a WP battalion sized tactical unit. However, in the series, company sized units fighting as companies (ie- broken down from BN-level) suffer a tremendous fatigue disadvantage that their attackers don't suffer (being BN's). Some designers use the "Kampfgruppe" unit size for NATO companies as a work around to the fatigue penalty broken down companies suffer, but KG's can't recombine as BN's.

I'd like to see a patch with a new classification of unit size which would allow a scenario designer to break down AND recombine selected company sized combat units out of and back into BN's. I envision this as a new size maybe called "Team" or "Company Team" which would recover fatigue like a KG or BN whether the unit was combined or not. This way, the scenario designer could provide for break down of certain manuever units into company teams with the same fatigue accumulation and recovery as BN's.

Taffy
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)