Several Moscow 42 Questions

[JDR Dragoon]

Well you just taught me something. I can confirm this works as advertised in Panzer Campaigns. I will check with Ed on what the implications are if we adjust the values accordingly.

Kewl. Do not be put off by the fact, that after saving, the values in the box might look like a random bit of code (for instance 3/21278). If you have entered the correct values (3/9 for instance) it will show up as such both in the editor and in-game once you are finished editing the unit.

PS.
If you want to avoid having small regimental level companies that die too easily to enemy fire, an idea might be to roll their values/task into the values of the battalions (so instead of a regimental AT company, each battalion gets a slightly higher HA value etc.). This of course leads to other problems, like the battalions being very effective against armor thanks to the boosted HA value and retaining that effectiveness for longer due to their size and number of men. But then again, every design decision is a trade-off.

[76mm]

Couple more questions:

1) I've got the alternative indirect and direct fire optional rules turned on, so I thought that I shouldn't have to pick specific target units (just hexes) when firing, direct or indirect. For indirect I usually just select a hex and it is fine, but every now and then I need to select a target unit. For direct fire, it seems like I usually have to select a target unit--can anyone say what is going on?

2) Defensive fire seems to be pretty random--is there any rhyme or reason as to when defensive fire is triggered, or is it pretty much just random? I usually try to lead with a more expendable unit under the theory that the first unit is more likely to trigger defensive fire, but it doesn't seem that simple. Any tips?

[bdtj1815]

There are also some "release through being spotted" units around Tula and northeast of there, which now activate 2 turns early (for the Germans) to 7 turns early (for the Soviets). The same applies to units of 16 Army, all of which are spotted by AT companies or other units that can't move out of their spotting range on turn 1 due to lack of MP's or being Fixed, which means they're spotted when the visibility increases to 2km.

The units:

-the Panzerjaeger company in 387, 104 (the elevation covers it in part, but it might be spotted by 1/26 GRR).
-the Panzerjaeger company in 392, 102 (pretty much doomed by default and even though it could normally move northeast along the road to avoid spotting the Guards, if the 28th SMG company moves up, it can't).
-the Panzerjaeger company in 356, 133.
-the Panzerjaeger company in 347, 137.
-9./III/Schuetzen GD in 438, 301.
-3.Krad Btl 3 in 439, 292 and the units in 437, 291 that are spotted by the Soviet unit in 437, 292, which could be moved south or southwest 1 hex to prevent it (not entirely sure if the Soviet unit south of the unit in 439, 292 can spot it, the elevation might prevent it).
-the units in 434, 290.
-the units in 427, 286.
-the units in 425, 284.
-1./Krad BtL 34 in 427, 282.
-the units in 429, 281.
-the units in 501, 272.
-the units in 504, 272.

The other units within 2 hex range can either be moved back or can't be spotted due to terrain. If you feel units activating early is a problem, you could consider increasing the distance between fixed units (in the south) or moving the units that can't move out of their hex on turn 1 back a bit.

Have just started a new campaign as German after the update and on turn 2 visibility has risen to 3 hexes. Virtually the whole front line is now spotted and unfixed on both sides. I have had a look at the weather.dat and see it could be as high as 4 hexes which would have even more units unfixed. This allows massive amounts of very damaging Soviet artillery fire and makes the withdrawal of 2nd PanzerGruppe very difficult. Is this intentional as it seems to be against earlier comments in this thread and in the notes? Am going to hold off doing my turn for now.

[Strela]

Brian,

Based on the weather for the day it did clear (see page 18 in the notes) Now that said it is having an outsized impact on your game. My suggestion is to edit the weather.dat and change the Dec 6 visibility maximum from 4 back down to 2. That will prevent the impact you are seeing. If you want to be really certain do the same thing for the 7th. For this to work for the 6th you will have to restart.

I may consider updating the weather.dat permanently to prevent this happening going forward. Would like peoples thoughts on that...?

David

[bdtj1815]

Thanks for your quick reply. Going to restart with the edited weather.dat.

I think changing it is a must or the game will be totally different to historic reality. I know it is only some frontline units that are unfixed but it also brings into play Soviet artillery which can just fire away for turn after turn. Similarly it could give the Germans an advantage as they can get some units out early.

[76mm]

Now that we're talking about the weather, I have a bigger complaint... After reading the designer notes and playing 34 turns into the Grand Campaign, I'm not sure if I agree that the weather is being modeled properly in Moscow 42.

For instance, I noted that some of my units which had crossed (unnoticed) rivers during Frozen turns were suddenly Isolated when the weather turned from Frozen to Snowy, which apparently caused the rivers to instantly thaw, leaving my poor comrades unsupplied.

This result does not make sense to me--the rivers were frozen, and would hardly thaw during a single day of "warm" weather ("warm" is applied loosely because according to the weather data provided in the designer notes, the temperature did not rise above zero degrees Celsius during the entire period of the Grand Campaign and was generally much lower).

From the Designer notes, it seems that the designers took the temperature as the basis for ground conditions. Here is a quote: "Ground conditions were predicated off the temperature. There was 100% chance of frozen if
the daily temperature was -20 deg C or more. For every percentage point to 0 deg C there was 5% chance of snow. For example at -10 deg C there would 50% chance of snow. If the temperature was -6% deg C or less then there was 5% chance of mud and if less than -2% deg C, 10% chance."

Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but this approach seems fundamentally flawed to me for the following reasons:
1) Ground conditions, and rivers, should be frozen throughout the campaign; a rise from -20 to -10 or -5 does not mean that rivers should thaw.
2) The formula described above seems to confuse atmospheric conditions with ground conditions: as the temperature rises, snowfall becomes more likely, but this does not mean that there should be a 50% chance that rivers will thaw if the temperature increases to -10, for instance.
3) The game engine does not directly model snowfall or any other form of precipitation (which is another issue...)--it only models ground conditions (with associated temperatures) and visibility. Therefore, to replicate snowfall in an already frozen environment, it seems to me like you should simply decrease visibility while leaving ground conditions as Frozen.
4) Visibility under some presumed precipitation conditions also seems overstated. (2 for blizzard, 3 for snow). I suggest that visibility should be reduced to 1 for blizzard and 2 for snow. Also, why is a blizzard treated differently from a Storm, I thought a Storm was a blizzard?

Again, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like the game engine generally treats weather in a very crude manner, and the current weather modelling in M42 doesn't accurately reflect how the game handles weather.

[bdtj1815]

I agree with your comments completely. Just because it gets a bit warmer, relatively speaking, which leads to snow will not in the short-term mean rivers unfreeze. Your suggestion of reducing visibility during snow days seems much appropriate. Having been on exercise in Germany on a number of occasions during winter snowfall I would suggest no more than 1 hex visibility would be enough.

[76mm]

bdtj, I actually agree that in a Blizzard visibility should not be more than a couple hundred meters (if that) and that in a normal snowfall no more than 1km but I don't know if it is realistic (or possible) within game parameters to reduce visibility to 0 during Blizzards and 1 during normal snowfall, but I think that visibility of 1/2 would be better than now.

Also, I don't know that I understand your point about Sov artillery, since as far as I can tell even Fixed artillery can fire on spotted units, so even if visibility is 1 or 2 Sov artillery will be able to pound whatever German units are spotted (although granted more German units will be spotted with vis of 3/4 than 1/2).

And rivers thawing creates real difficulties for the Sovs in some sectors, such as Kalinin and a few other places where now my units can't cross rivers which I previously ignored.

[raizer]

Id disagree a bit. Im re-reading Erickson now and at the start of the campaign up N the weather would get cold, enough for a tennous land bridge over lagoda but then a day or so later, the temps would rise, and the lakes (or rivers in your case) wouldn't thaw out but they became unsafe for moto transport. There are all those ancedotal stories of trucks falling through the ice at lagoda. In other words a total thaw of rivers and lakes isnt what is being simulated, rather a rise in temp, lessens the ice, making it unsafe for vehicle transport. I can see this happening with rivers. There are some noted cases I just read of ruskies attacking across rivers in the 3rd week of decemeber, in 2nd pz groups area, where the foot guys could cross and make their attacks but the ice was too thin for moto transport

[76mm]

First, I'd say that rivers and lakes are very different, and as far as I know lakes don't freeze at all in PzC. That's OK I guess, but I don't think you can really compare the two. Second, I don't think that armor should ever be able to cross frozen rivers, but the game doesn't allow such distinctions. Third, there should be a distinction between vehicles and foot, but there is not, but foot should certainly be able to cross, but cannot. And I don't agree that warming from -20 to -10 would make previously passable ice suddenly impassible--either vehicles should be able to cross, or they shouldn't.