HPS PzC II

[dgk196]

Hello...

Automated Movement Orders I think there is an ability to have automated movement in the game at this moment. During several gaming sessions, we've tried it out and mostly we stopped using it because it just doesn't seem to work very well. So, yes there is at least some room for improvement!?

Movement by Planned Route This would be an alternative to automated movement. It would allow the planned route to be established by selecting a set of waypoints along the desired route. The organization to follow this route could be established by selecting the HQ of the unit, designating a planned route and then let the computer perform that operation. At a minimum you would have a start point and an end point (destination). To get better control over the route you also should be able to set intervening points along the way, at say road intersections and so on.

This would simulate the 'traffic control' aspect of organizations to perform route marches. How many photos exist of a post, at an intersection, with multiple unit placards and directional indicators on it, with attendant personnel directing traffic!? Also, once set, the organization should retain the relative position of the units during the movement, follow the guy in front of you aspect. There should be strict adherence to the route and the relative position of the units, one to another, as regards this form of automated movement.

The claim not withstanding about the computer figuring out the shortest route, I've had units go out of their way (actually leave the road they where on) to move to within firing range of close enemy units, while performing a movement! I like the 'units make errors' aspect to throw in some variables, but to me that is just not acceptable.

Selecting / Identifying Units What a great idea! And it uses existing aspects already in the game, brilliant!

Bridge Classification Specifically this would be an aid to identifying the classification of bridges as regards their weight capacity allowance. I've done this for the 2D large aspect. I've gone into the graphics section of the program and in the file that has the graphics for 2D bridges, I changed the central area of the bridge graphic to reflect the capacity. That is for 'heavy' bridges, I changed the 'road' portion of the graphic to green. Continuing the idea, I made the graphic for the 'medium' bridge yellow and the graphic for the 'light' bridge is colored red. Sure makes it easier to see where you can go as regards the needs of your units for bridge types.

Dennis

[Buccaneer]

To be clear, as regards the actual units, since the game keeps track of individual guns, vehicles, personnel then there is no 'scale' as regards the units. Not like in say a game like PanzerBlitz, where the 'units' represent some number of components and individual losses are not kept track of. In such a game you either effect the entire 'unit' or you do not.

I disagree .... what about disruption, low ammo, and communication/leadership? It is not to the individual but effects the entire unit. Individual losses are nothing more than an abstraction in relating the reduction of combat effectiveness for the different unit types.

As to the games physical 'scale', the distance from one hex to the next that will determine the 'range' of the weapons in the game and how many units you can put in a hex. At least that's my understanding of the situation. But you know, I could be wrong.

As to the duration of the turn. That will determine the number of times you can conduct attacks, based on the required number of action points that must be expended to be able to conduct the various attack types. As far as I know the game doesn't increase the effectiveness of the attack because of the duration of the turn. It just allows the relative (target to attacker) attacks to be conducted some number of times, depending on the type of attack.

Agreed, but for systems that have a time component to them (smoke, star shells, etc) time (and distance) play an important aspect. In a 2 hour turn, those things are abstracted in the attack. They wouldn't need a physical representation as the effect would be gone before your turn ends.

As to 'where the smoke lands'. Well, I would presume that it lands on the enemy unit that you are trying to 'mask' with the smoke, for whatever reason. Say to allow your units to close with the enemy without incurring direct-fire, or indirect-fire attacks, (or say, just reducing the effects of those attacks) as it is executing an assault, which could potentially disrupt their assault. Or to 'blind' units that have been positioned to 'support' other friendly units. Lets say you are trying to mask a bridging operation. You would apply a smoke screen at the location of the bridge ops. I mean you don't have to 'smoke' the entire hex, the 'bridge' isn't a kilometer wide or long.

I think you are missing my point. Smoke is an area of effect system where size, placement, and duration is key to its success or failure in blocking LOS. In a game where the position of the unit(s) is abstracted (somewhere in the 1km hex is a unit of 14 tanks, a unit 250 men, and a unit 10 guns) physically representing smoke becomes quite difficult. Which additional friendly units could benefit from it? What other enemy units does it effect? Now you need to know the position of each unit in relation to the smoke and all other units in the same hex to determine the effect. Not impossible ... just not necessarily appropriate at this game scale.

I like the feedback.... 'points' that make you think about the game more carefully, end up being useful. The more you understand the better it is, eh?

Dennis

Sorry to have hijacked your thread. Always good to share ideas and look for improvements. My apologies for derailing the intent and purpose. However, I still think you might find Panzer Battles more in line with what you are looking for in Panzer Campaigns. I enjoy both series and am glad we have them!


@USS Wyoming - Love the selecting units idea. That would be quite helpful!

[dgk196]

Hello...

Not a problem... I don't consider it hijacking... responding to threads is the whole idea here... eh?

And yes I agree... good discussions shouldn't be problem right? Keep it coming... after all someone else might get a good idea from reading the thread, something we didn't think about!

As to your first point, we agree. I think you might have misinterpreted what I said. I'm saying that PzC does those things and a game like PanzerBlitz does not.

As to the 'application' of a 'smoke screen', you would need to 'target' the unit you plan to screen. Just as if you where 'firing' at or 'attacking' the unit(s). Even if you are 'screening' your own units. The effect? Well to start, it would have the effect of an 'unspotted' hex. Also, it should have that effect on both the unit being attacked and the attacker. You can't see 'it' and 'it' can't see you. I think you'll find that at times, its not such a good idea to use smoke. Except for 'smoke' being used in say a 'local' engagement, such as an assault. There should be some sort of requirement related to supply level and being 'in command' for units to use a smoke screen!?

Dennis

[USS Wyoming]

Movement by Planned Route This would be an alternative to automated movement. It would allow the planned route to be established by selecting a set of waypoints along the desired route. The organization to follow this route could be established by selection the HQ of the unit, designating a planned route and then let the computer perform that operation. At a minimum you would have a start point and an end point (destination). To get better control over the route you also should be able to set intervening points along the way, at say road intersections and so on.

Waypoints/movement plan fits nicely. I could see the benefit to settings waypoints in order for the formation to reform and to limit the mischief that auto-routing might do.

Considering the communications of the era, it would seem reasonable that once a route was planned and the formation begins its movement, that changes to the plan route would necessitate a delay if interrupted by the player. One could impose a movement penalty if the player changes the route of the formation before all the units in the formation reach the waypoint/final destination.

[dgk196]

Hello...

Another 'gaming session' and another idea for 'PzC II'

Formation Deployment' This would be a way of detailing the 'deployment' of your units relative to one another and the position on the map. At a minimum there would seem to be four basic formations.

1.) Line Abreast. All units of the formation are in one line along the width of the formation. I'm not sure, but I think this is the formation in the game when deployed out of movement modes for combat. This would yield maximum attack and defense factors, just one set.

2.) Wedge. This would be one of the subordinate units or units in a stack in the 'forward' deployment and two units 'back', or behind the one forward unit forward units. This would yield two 'lines' of deployment and two simultaneous sets of attack and defense factors. One for the forward unit and one for the two units deployed in depth. This could be used for 'probing' attacks to minimize losses or in defense which would require the two lines of defense to be attacked in succession.

3.) Inverted Wedge. This would be two of the subordinate units, or units in the stack, to be deployed forward and one unit in the back. Again this would yield a deployment in depth that would be stronger than the Wedge while reducing losses and giving a two layer deployment. There would be an appropriate adjustment in the attack and defense factors of the two layers of deployment.

4.) Column. This would be the subordinate units deployed one behind the other successively. The attack and defense factors adjusted accordingly. This would give three layers of defense which would have to be attacked in the order of their deployment. This is of course a defense in depth within the hex, used to slow the advance of the enemy attacking by making him conduct three successive attacks in order to potentially 'take' the hex.

There are other details to be worked out. Such as the direction of the arrayed units. Something like the facing determination in deploying a bridge in a hex. The selection of the deployment direction would also establish the relative front, flanks and rear of the unit. This then would give you potential advantages for outflanking units or attacking simultaneously from various 'directions' at the same time against a defender.

This could be applied 'globally' as in 'baked-in' to the scenario or used on-the-fly during the game.

Dennis

[USS Wyoming]

I don't think I would support a change indicative of a tactical maneuver.
Don't forget that the German army had an actual defensive and offensive doctrine at the operational level. The Russian front tended to blow those doctrines apart because there was more geography than resources, but the doctrines were still there.

We model PZC defensive doctrine with the ability to improve the units defensive posture. One could suggest that the "line formation" is already abstracted. I don't think it would be practical to have a formation tool offensively because most often the formation is dependent upon terrain and terrain is a frequent modifier in the gamer. Terrain is a substitute for formation selection.

If you want to see if "formation" impacts combat results in a game, I suggest using Command Ops (although you can't buy it right now because it will soon be CO2). Formations can be selected and the scale is similar. It might make a good test scenario.

The battles in PzC can be huge (I'm playing an 80 turn in PBEM now) and I don't want to make it more laborious by dealing with more minutiae, I want the same gameplay made more dynamic.

I want to keep hearing ideas out there, so let's keep it up.

[dgk196]

Hello...

Yes, I thought about the size of the game aspect too. Realizing that what is overdone for some is just right for others is always a consideration. For large scenarios, you probably wouldn't want to saddle the players with doing more work just for the sake of doing more work. That is having to set the 'formation' as units deploy in a large game could lead to some very long turns, to execute them that is.

In smaller scenarios it might not be such a hassle. Or for the 'dedicated' player who wants as much detail as they can stand, the use of this in large scenarios is not out of the question, eh? That's why I was thinking it could be something that is 'baked-in' for the player that doesn't want to be bothered with that level of control of the units. Then as an option, say at the start of the game, you could select the ability to deploy formations.

The 'baked-in' aspect could be tied to either the entire side in a game, of specific units as needed. Allowing or dis-allowing this ability might be good in limiting, from a historical perspective, just how much tactical flexibility is available to various units. You could let, or impose' the default formation that the units are deployed into when they change over from the transit (movement) mode. So that setting the tactical deployment is not always needed or allowed according to the limits of the forces involved. Terrain sure could be a factor for such formation deployments. But, maybe if you can't 'properly' deploy your units in a hex, then you have too many units in the hex!? But I believe you are correct. this has to be factored in to determine just how the forces in a hex can be employed as restricted by hex parameters.

As an example... from 'Colossus Reborn' by Mr. David M. Glantz.

"The NKO finally began remedying this situation in October 1942 by issuing orders altering the tactical offensive battle formation and employment of tanks during offensive operations. First, on 8 October, NKO Order No.306 required commanders at all levels of command from rifle companies through rifle divisions to deploy their forces in single-echelon battle formations and create and employ tactical reserves compromising one-ninth of the overall force during offensive operations. In effect, this order required divisions to employ 80 percent of their combat power well forward to facilitate the achievement of tactical penetrations."

This was put into effect for all formations from Divisions on down to Company levels. Prior to this the Russians deployed in a 'blunt wedge' formation, for these units. So in games and scenarios, the Russians should be limited to their deployment types up to and after the Order No.306 is put into effect. This would simulate the 'limited' Russian tactics, for use in the games.

While this might be good for simulating the limitations of the Russians it would not be the same for the Germans. As one of their advantages is the use of tactical formations as needed, which would reflect the flexibility of the units, related to training, leadership and experience. In other words the German forces should be able to assume the various tactical formations, as proposed, to fit the situation as needed. Hopefully such an addition to PzC II would be included, in order to get a more 'historical' aspect in effect in the game!?

Dennis

[BigDuke66]

Well in an abstract way this can already be seen in the two WW1 games as here for example the French initially have a high assault rating but low defense rating because of the "cult of the offensive" doctrine, later when they change it they get lower assault ratings but higher defensive ratings.

Question is would it really in regard to the scale be so important to allow various tactical formations that may have changed anyway over the course of a game turn?
Or would it be enought show the overall "tactical proficiency" of a side by adjusting the unit ratings like in the example above?
I think the later is better in the way the game currently works.

[dgk196]

Hello...

I see what you guys are saying... adding such an ability... depending on how it is used in PzC II, could be too much for some situations. Of course that depends on the players and how much time they want to spend playing the game. But I think adding it to the game in two ways can make both camps happy.

The 'baked-in' method would require little or no intervention on the part of the players. The optional 'on-the-fly' method would allow / require players to make deployments based on tactical considerations, which where 'historically' (?) present at this level.

Would it make a difference in the game? Again, we can only speculate as to its effectiveness or practicality. The only way to make the determination would be to actually use it in a game. I think though that since the various types of tactical deployment can effect the relative results of 'combat resolution' in the game it should be included in PzC II. It could be viewed as relevant as having direct and indirect attack types for artillery or fire / assault attack types.

Dennis

[dgk196]

Hello....

Next up...

Improved Positions, Trenches, Bunkers and Pillboxes. Basically, I think there might be a need to categorize these. So that, they are first... type specific and secondly size specific. For type specific they need to be either 'Infantry', 'Gun' or 'Vehicular' types of emplacements. As to the size, there seems to be no difference between these emplacements. So, they need to have some sort of specificity as to what 'size' unit can occupy it and gain an advantage from the prepared position.

For example an established improved position for say a 37mm anti-tank gun unit might not be all that applicable when being occupied by a 170mm gun unit. Or an improved position, or trench, for an infantry company might not afford sufficient space for an infantry battalion. Also, specific pillboxes should only accommodate specific unit types and sizes.

Dennis