The Competition & Teaser Thread

[Xaver]

Well, my only problem is when see strange things is not rare... for example a shoot duel at 1.000m between Tigers/panthers VS T-34/76 where soviets score a lot of good shoots and not only think in destroy an "animal" that is a big WTF but see to how increase the german unit fatigue is a little... well, i understand you can see some extreme results but they need be more the expection to the rule and usually with a "tactical" explanation.

I dont know how works engine but know there is a way to "compensate" the lack of facing at least made me be less negative with this, i dont have experience in game so i cant say it but if you say doesnt punish good tactical use of terrain AND leave good tanks with their advantages...

Something i need ask, the defensive works (IP, trenches, bunkers, pillboxes) in PzB unlike in PzC increase the armored units defensive bonus??? i think in the soviet dug-in tanks in Kursk (is only an example i dont say the game is going to cover Kursk ) or how in defensive works a tank can find a hull down position in a "clear" hex with no other terrain defensive bonus, if i dont remember bad tanks have a "hull down" status or something similar, but you can see this when they enter in defensive works???

My idea is that tanks in owned defensive positions have a defensive bonus but when they enter in non controled defensive works (enemy hexes or neutral hexes abandoned by any of the sides) until they control the hex they have hull down bonus that i think is inferior to hull down (hull down doesnt cover flanks and tanks are vulnerable to splash from arty).

OOOO is hard create an IP or trench??? or you only have the defensive works that start with scen??? if you need 2 hours to have a defensive work... and this is the very very very best situation in PzC using full btl units.

And well, if in the competition we have a winner i dont see bad start see some "OPFOR" art

PD: my "release the game" spell is in process but i cant find unicorn blood... no problem to find crazy wargamers

More serious now, i dont expect this week game but next... i have hope in the change of month.

[ComradeP]

I don't have a problem with how this is handled in these games. A kill doesn't necessarily mean destroyed, unless of course it is the last strength point. It can just mean disabled, knocking out a tread, causing the vehicle to become stuck, etc.

True, and the greater the scale, the less of a problem it becomes as you can see it as a form of abstraction of the examples you mention.

However, on a lower scale closer to representing tactical battles, it can be problematic.

Examples: in a tactical level wargame, a tank is using a low hill as cover and only its turret is visible. The majority of the tank can't be seen or hit by direct fire. Assuming the enemy vehicle has enough elevation on the gun to be able to hit the turret of the enemy tank, it will have to pierce the front turret armour which is often one of the most well protected parts of the armour. Some weapons that might be able to pierce the side armour of a tank can't inflict any damage in this situation, because the side isn't exposed.

In a more operational level simulation, even if the game has a sort of bonus for being hulldown or in a position as described above, it tends to be a modifier to defensive strength. As it's a numerical value placed against another numerical value, the possibility of knocking out the tank is generally there due to variation in the outcome. There might also be various modifiers that influence the firepower of a certain weapon system, such as quality improving damage.

In a tactical level wargame, infantry gets physical protection from bunkers or from being in buildings. The bunkers or buildings themselves will stop many or most hits from low to medium calibre weapons.

In a more operational level wargame, infantry might get a defensive strength bonus, but won't actually be invulnerable to certain hits, so for example weapons that have high soft attack and reasonable hard attack values but low accuracy like rocket- or projectile launchers can still be quite lethal, even though normally they wouldn't be. Game example: Infantry in concrete or thick brickwork buildings, or cellars, would be nearly impossible to hit with a Katyusha salvo but urban terrain in PzC gives a numerical defensive bonus, which only reduces effectiveness.

There's also the problem of IGOUGO when simulating more or less tactical battles using a more operational system: if units can get 3 opportunity fire chances per turn, it's possible to draw fire at a certain range and then simply move up and hit the unit without it being able to defend itself. In a tactical wargame, the unit will keep firing back as the distance closes until ammunition runs out (if the target is spotted and can be hit).

I'm actually sort of afraid of that at the 250m scale: the Soviets driving some weak low value units in front of the German tanks to draw their fire a couple of times and then moving the T-34's in to kill the helpless German armour.

[Xaver]

You are right ComradeP. at this level a single tank, even a single soldier is important and in IGOUGO games there is allways the "show the bunny" exploit, in PzC only armored units can use it and when terrain is clear but at this scale maybe infantry can use it to... even if only armored units can use it infantry is going to suffer a lot.

Other problem you can add to this is the Tiller problem with defensive fire, sometimes you see strange things in PzC like an infantry unit attacked by infantry BUT the infantry unit doesnt fire to attacker, do it an AT unit or an infantry unit in other hex, in PzC level VS armor is a minor problem but in PzB if a T-34 company fire over a Tiger I platoon but the defensive fire comes from an infantry unit stacked or not with the armored unit... you notice it a lot in close combat and maybe you can use the move armor to force shoots with low chance to do something leaving enemy infantry with no defensive fire, them move your infantry... and viceversa VS armor as ComradeP says... what i can say, we are humans and find bugs to exploit them is a must have or you never try find one in chess???

Defensive bonus... lets see, they talk about a hull down bonus but nothing more... damn, where is the top secret FAQ and manual when you need them

[Nitram Draw]

I don't have a problem with how this is handled in these games. A kill doesn't necessarily mean destroyed, unless of course it is the last strength point. It can just mean disabled, knocking out a tread, causing the vehicle to become stuck, etc.

True, and the greater the scale, the less of a problem it becomes as you can see it as a form of abstraction of the examples you mention.

However, on a lower scale closer to representing tactical battles, it can be problematic.

Examples: in a tactical level wargame, a tank is using a low hill as cover and only its turret is visible. The majority of the tank can't be seen or hit by direct fire. Assuming the enemy vehicle has enough elevation on the gun to be able to hit the turret of the enemy tank, it will have to pierce the front turret armour which is often one of the most well protected parts of the armour. Some weapons that might be able to pierce the side armour of a tank can't inflict any damage in this situation, because the side isn't exposed.

In a more operational level simulation, even if the game has a sort of bonus for being hulldown or in a position as described above, it tends to be a modifier to defensive strength. As it's a numerical value placed against another numerical value, the possibility of knocking out the tank is generally there due to variation in the outcome. There might also be various modifiers that influence the firepower of a certain weapon system, such as quality improving damage.

In a tactical level wargame, infantry gets physical protection from bunkers or from being in buildings. The bunkers or buildings themselves will stop many or most hits from low to medium calibre weapons.

In a more operational level wargame, infantry might get a defensive strength bonus, but won't actually be invulnerable to certain hits, so for example weapons that have high soft attack and reasonable hard attack values but low accuracy like rocket- or projectile launchers can still be quite lethal, even though normally they wouldn't be. Game example: Infantry in concrete or thick brickwork buildings, or cellars, would be nearly impossible to hit with a Katyusha salvo but urban terrain in PzC gives a numerical defensive bonus, which only reduces effectiveness.

There's also the problem of IGOUGO when simulating more or less tactical battles using a more operational system: if units can get 3 opportunity fire chances per turn, it's possible to draw fire at a certain range and then simply move up and hit the unit without it being able to defend itself. In a tactical wargame, the unit will keep firing back as the distance closes until ammunition runs out (if the target is spotted and can be hit).

I'm actually sort of afraid of that at the 250m scale: the Soviets driving some weak low value units in front of the German tanks to draw their fire a couple of times and then moving the T-34's in to kill the helpless German armour.

Yes on a tactical scale where you are keeping track of disabled vehicle vs. destroyed vehicle it does become a problem.

But the fact is the big cats were beaten somehow. They were not invincible. There were about 1,700 Tigers of both type produced and ~7,000 Panthers of all types so the Allies figured some way to counter them. Unless the game takes into account ALL the ways they were countered, either running out of fuel, mechanical breakdown, air power, rear shots, assaults, IED's or just plain luck, then it is hard to be totally accurate in a game. I wouldn't want to play a game where the biggest reason I lost my Panthers was due to a bad drive train or running out of diesel so if occasionally one get's off'ed by a Sherman on a front shot from 1000 yards I just can rationalize it as flawed metal or the winning the lottery shot!

[Xaver]

They were not invincible but as usual not only tanks kill tanks, here the west/soviet tanks where less effective on this role (expect maybe in certain periods, i think in the first appear of T-34 or the armored warfare in desert) i refer that a well used panther/Tiger needs be overrun by a lot of tanks, here who you use armor is diference between lose 10 T-34 to kill 1 Tiger or lose only 3.

I refer only to combat loses, the operational loses are other world, in PzC you have it with the breakdowns (maybe this is why panthers are C quality??? i think in certain brigade that use panthers in certain battle and lose a lot of them thanks to a combo of not well trained crews in a new model tank with excesive problems) and the low fuel effects.. same with low ammo.

I prefer have see if a casualty is a kill or a breakdown because apart this you can recover a breakdown and you can reduce enemy victory points when you have it again ready... i dont know why when an unit recover casualties in the victory screen the soldiers/guns/vehicles recovered are remoded from stats and victory points to.

Is the problem when you reduce the scope in a game, abstraction needs be replaced by details... in PzC you have in casualties only vehicles and guns but i want know how many tanks i lose, how many AAA guns, arty guns, AT guns etc etc.

[Richie61]

So I have been reading thru the thread and I am still trying to figure out a few things. Granted I don't have PB (yet) and I am not a vet with PzC, but I will try to ask these in a writable format.

One:
Say I have 3 platoons with this many men each, 10,25,55 and combine them into a company and then break them back into platoons.
Will each have 30 men and have the lowest fatigue rating of the worse platoon at the time they formed into a company?

Two:
Isn't PzC setup so that if your HQ is destroyed during your turn, it will
come back at the start of your next turn?

Thanks in advance for bearing with my noob questions

[76mm]

Strela, I'm not sure about this new series yet, although as usual I'm sorely tempted.

I'm sure the FAQ will be all well and good, but will the manual also be available for download before buying the game? I can usually get a much better feel about whether I'll like a game from a quick perusal of the manual than a couple of FAQs...

[Nitram Draw]

One:
Say I have 3 platoons with this many men each, 10,25,55 and combine them into a company and then break them back into platoons.
Will each have 30 men and have the lowest fatigue rating of the worse platoon at the time they formed into a company?

I believe this is correct. They will re-divide and have the fatigue of the original unit, which would be the worst fatigue of any unit prior to re-combining.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Will there be a demo with a scenario or two?

As for what Ritchie was asking about platoons, I think it would be great that if we had those strengths left in a company, we should have an option to do that or maybe take 20 from the 55 and transfer to the 10. Many times units have taken from one unit and assigned to another because of the strength issue, but the option should be ours. I personally think if you combine into a company, it should be your responsibility of evening things out or leaving as is. Maybe we would judt drop of the 10 man platoon to guard an intersection while the rest of the company continues advancing with the majority of the company strength. Could also have the option of transfering a few troops from the HQ to the line platoons as needed.

[GerryM]

The only demo I have seen is PzC Mius. So I doubt it. I don't know if this lack of demo policy is something to do with HPS (I know they are separate now) or to JT himself.

Gerry