How do you improve PzB???

[Xaver]

Well, they can use things from other Tiller engines, i think in "enfiladed" status from EAW, maybe they can use this with other name like "hull down" and/or "exposed" when a tank is target for a tank in lower and/or higher terrain... now you dont have info about this.

The problem in engine for me is now in the performance of armor, as are now the engine the good tanks in lower numbers offer a lot less than worst tanks in bigger numbers... 2 Tigers are less effective than 10 PzIIIm for example solve this is a big problem because you can move from low performance to an excesive high performance and affect other vehicles that works fine.

I talk about a modificator in PDT when units are under certain number of vehicles to improve them, not the firepower, improve the chance of a kill, maybe see less "no effect" when a unit of 1-2-3 vehicles shoots is a first step... the idea is that you can set a value per side where you can define a "killer" bonus to made that fire results be more deadly... you can do this as a general feature or if is excesive for tanks with lower quality in same side define the bonus only per vehicle type, i dont know if is possible that a bonus first see side, second see the unit type by equipment... apart this could be interesting to in AT if is needed.

The point for me is find a way to made units under 5 tanks more dangerous at least in Kursk and well, in future titles if you need use smaller units you have a way to made them usefull.

I need ask this to Volcanoman... when you play with the 88 values in Tobruk... you find if at certain point increase hard attack doesnt affect to the kill rate??? maybe solution is increase hard attack in certain units... or not.

[TheBigRedOne]

The discussion about armor is interesting, and is something that certainly manifests itself due to the scale. Squad Battles has suffered from similar armor frustrations. The smaller you go, the more detail gamers feel should be available to make the game play more realistic. At some point, though, it gets hard to really implement it all without major changes to the engine. "Hull Down" for instance made its appearance with Red Victory, but it still is only something that a tank can be given from the initial set up. Once it moves, it can never go back to a Hull Down situation.

I imagine there will be growing pains, but with constructive discussions and a good design team, I'm sure the games will improve going forward. The key will be for gamers to be patient and not expect that all of the nuances can be fixed, at least not right away.

[Wodin]

@strela I just played Franz's adventure scenario and won a major victory only loosing 1 Tiger right near the end (-41 points). I do find it alittle strange though firing away with two tigers at things like armored cars for no effect or fatigue or at T70's in the next hex for no effect. Granted they might be moving within the hex or behind abit of cover, but still it felt at times both armour and anti tank guns where a little tame.

[ComradeP]

In terms of comparing the results from battalions, companies or platoons firing at eachother to the average tactical wargame, casualties are lower on average. However, unlike those tactical wargames the PzC/PB scenario cover longer periods of time where losses add up.

It's indeed a bit odd that vehicle units take few casualties, but that has always been the case as far as I know. I don't really know how the 1 vehicle = 10 men is coded, maybe we should also view the results as: a vehicle unit only loses a vehicle when about 10 men (with hard defence) would be lost.

Results can be a bit random as well, but like Xaver I think they will at least give a significant advantage to higher quality units provided there's at least about 10 vehicles in the unit. Whereas infantry combat is still in many cases probably bloodier than real life due to the losses the infantry can take from massed artillery, tank combat takes a lot longer to be resolved. 25 SS Panzer IVG's vs. ~10 T-34's is highly unlikely to have a happy ending for the Soviets, but it will take time before the units are destroyed.

[TheBigRedOne]

Results can be a bit random as well, but like Xaver I think they will at least give a significant advantage to higher quality units provided there's at least about 10 vehicles in the unit. Whereas infantry combat is still in many cases probably bloodier than real life due to the losses the infantry can take from massed artillery, tank combat takes a lot longer to be resolved. 25 SS Panzer IVG's vs. ~10 T-34's is highly unlikely to have a happy ending for the Soviets, but it will take time before the units are destroyed.

Squad Battles has an optional rule which takes the unit's quality into effect. Most folks I've played use this optional rule. I'm not a PzC guy, so I don't know if this type of rule is utilized on an operational type scale....

When the Quality Loss Modifier optional rule is selected, then the casualty and effectiveness losses suffered by infantry, both Teams and Leaders, is affected by a factor that depends on the quality of the unit:
• Units of Quality A have their losses modified by 0.5.
• Units of Quality B have their losses modified by 0.75.
• Units of Quality C have no change to their losses.
• Units of Quality D have their losses modified by 1.3.
• Units of Quality E have their losses modified by 1.6.
• Units of Quality F have their losses modified by 2.0

[ComradeP]

That would be nice to have, but it might be a bit too much for lower quality forces as they already face quality penalties for movement, fatigue, disruption and attacks/assaults.

-

Hmm, after some testing, I agree with Xaver that it can be too easy to drive up to defending enemy armour, as opportunity fire at range is not very effective and too infrequent to stop a charge. This makes it difficult for the Axis to keep their distance.

If I would fire and move back, I would need smoke to prevent the Soviets from firing at my units before a range I'm comfortable with. 30-40 T-34's suddenly being next to one of your tank units is difficult to counter as even at 2-3 hex range, the Panzer IV's don't outperform the T-34's by much.

The combat system also favours smaller units in a way. I have yet to see 25 Panzer IV's cause 5 losses in one shot, whilst 5 Panzer IV's regularly destroy 1 tank. In order to limit return fire, you're encouraged to fire with bigger units, but it's less efficient it seems. For example: I've been able to cause 2 losses to Churchills from 3 hexes away with 7 Panzer IV's and 2 Panzer IIIM's in one attack, but the best singe attack result from 1 hex away with 22 Panzer IV's is 4 vehicles thus far.

I'll play Nepkhaevo with Dog Soldier and possibly someone else and will post further comments. Initial impressions are that it's difficult to engage enemy armour before they're close to you.

[Wodin]

Thinking about the game and the time scale 30mins a turn I actually think the lethality of armour isn't enough..i.e not killing enough tanks in a turn..I was firing with two Tigers for what I suppose was four hours at some T70's and for most of the time caused no kills. I'd imagine at ranges of 750m and below after four hours those T70's should all have been smoldering wrecks. Infact I reckon two turns would have been enough..thats an hour. I kind of forget when playing how long a turn actually is so it doesn't seem as odd..only after when thinking about it did it seem off.

[ComradeP]

In the end, averages might be OK.

I also simply don't know how lethal the average armoured engagement was at the time. In a tactical game, or when you read memoirs, tanks are usually knocked out left and right, but I don't know how much time would be needed.

The casualties at longer range not being high is fine with me, it's the units getting shotgunned from 1 hex by either side moving his tank units op with limited to no opportunity fire that might be somewhat unbalanced.

I'll report back after the Nepkhaevo games are completed. The game with Dog Soldier will presumably be very tough, and the one against PijusMagnificus will also be tricky to win.

[Wodin]

Would like some options when it comes to organisation marking not just divisional..would like a regiment and battalion option aswell.

[GerryM]

Hello:

I mentioned this earlier. There are some scenarios below division level so I don't understand how divisional markings help.

The game is so related to PzC that maybe many players are not bothered about this as they are used to managing complex organizations. But the game could try and reach out to non-Tiller gamers by moving more away from PzC. An example would be the interface that goes back to Napoleonic times. This is not David's fault. JT just keeps milking this system and interface.

Gerry

Would like some options when it comes to organisation marking not just divisional..would like a regiment and battalion option aswell.