Normandy Patch Update

[Mike Bowen]

That makes sense 

If we wanted to try the effects of this is there a simple way of doing so.  I have messed around but not seriously with Omaha adding fatigue to the Germans the problem I have is recovery of fatigue by the time the us arrive at the German lines

Is there an easy way to reset all units fatigue?

I set every thing to 50 but am thinking 60 for the first line 75 for the next and 100 for units further back.

I just need 48 hours in the day 

Mike

Ps adding the funnies to Omaha is interesting

[wiggum]

I wonder if there will be any changes to bunkers, maybe removing the supply sources so they can become isolated if surrounded (and simulating the fact that defenders tend to panic/ get seriously nervous if surrounded).

[Strela]

I wonder if there will be any changes to bunkers, maybe removing the supply sources so they can become isolated if surrounded (and simulating the fact that defenders tend to panic/ get seriously nervous if surrounded).

We were not planning to make that change.

If you look at the major beach landings only selected bunkers/pillboxes have supply sources. These were carefully selected based upon their historic role in holding out during D-Day and/or substantially slowing the Allied advance. Every beach has weak points where the attackers can bypass the defenders. 

I can't think of any scenarios after the D-Day landings were we have included supply sources in bunkers and isolation should be a major tactic players employ.

David

[Strela]

That makes sense 

If we wanted to try the effects of this is there a simple way of doing so.  I have messed around but not seriously with Omaha adding fatigue to the Germans the problem I have is recovery of fatigue by the time the us arrive at the German lines

Is there an easy way to reset all units fatigue?

I set every thing to 50 but am thinking 60 for the first line 75 for the next and 100 for units further back.

I just need 48 hours in the day 

Mike

Ps adding the funnies to Omaha is interesting

Mike,

There are a couple of 'easier' way to add fatigue. Firstly within the scenario editor, selecting a unit and holding down Alt while clicking 'add fatigue' increments by ten rather then one.

The second way, if you understand the scenario files is to open them in a text editor and change the fatigue values there. This is quick but will require a knowledge of which lines relate to units and which value to change.

David

[Mike Bowen]

Thank you David 

I will put that on the to do list

Mike

[Wecky]

This is the best,just having fun with it.Played other games via email here years ago.Would like to do it again with this game.I am a casual player(novice)and would need a little help getting started.But I am a prolific and loyal e-gamer.2 turns a day,and not a quitter.

[panzerde]

This is the best,just having fun with it.Played other games via email here years ago.Would like to do it again with this game.I am a casual player(novice)and would need a little help getting started.But I am a prolific and loyal e-gamer.2 turns a day,and not a quitter.

And a pretty good player you are, too, based on the game we played! 

[ComradeP]

Now that I have a working internet connection:

David, though the math in your post adds up, there are some things that should be taken into consideration, which change the picture:

-In PzC, the (vast) majority of the regular infantry units used are battalions. Some sides can't split up units to begin with, and the Germans also often use battalions (which may have the strength of about 2-3 companies in the case of the "new" 4 company-style battalions).

In PB, the majority of the regular infantry units are platoon or two-platoon combined units. Full companies are larger than 100 men for many of the nations involved aside from German regular infantry platoons in Normandy, so they attract additional casualties and block LOS, making it less practical to use them.

What this means is that, by default, your units are more likely to gain fatigue at a higher factor in PB than in PzC, due to the average infantry unit size being smaller.

-In PzC, not all units at or near the frontline will take more than a handful of casualties (or none at all) each turn as the scale of the fighting means there will be quiet areas where not much happens.

Most units in PB at or near the frontline are likely to take casualties each turn due to unlimited opportunity fire and potentially numerous artillery units.

More or less by default, due to the smaller unit sizes units in Panzer Battles take more casualties on average as a percentage of their total strength than they would in PzC. In pretty bad turns where a battalions loses some 50 men in PzC, that's still not likely to be much more than 10% of its theoretical maximum strength. For a unit to lose ~10% of its maximum theoretical strength in PB, it only needs to take a handful of losses in most cases.

It is nearly impossible to kill most of a full strength battalion in one turn through direct fire in PzC, whilst it is quite possible to kill most of a company in PB through direct fire. Units are smaller in PB, but SA values are equal or higher to those in PzC. Combined with unlimited opportunity fire, that can lead to situations where units quickly lose their strength.

Getting a unit into medium fatigue from 0 to 100 in one turn through direct fire in PzC is not all that easy, but it's not that difficult to do in PB.

-In PzC, low visibility ranges and 6-8 or so daylight turns mean there is, with good play and with available reserves, room to make units recover from fatigue. As fatigue accumulates more slowly and the threshold for medium fatigue is higher, the amount of fatigue that needs to be recovered/the number of turns a unit needs to rest before it is combat effective again is usually low.

In PzC, unit effectiveness can only be crippled quickly through assaults when the unit is ZOC-locked or hitting it hard with airstrikes, artillery and direct fire. Both of those methods can only be applied to a small number of the enemy's units each turn.

In PB, long visibility ranges and over 30 daylight turns make it very difficult for units to regain fatigue during a battle, keeping in mind that any kind of fire blocks fatigue recovery.

As usual with percentage modifiers, penalties and bonuses, they only have a significant effect on higher numbers, which means fatigue accumulation and recovery is on average not all that different with a value of 10. Particularly as the fatigue mechanic is "none to twice" the listed value in the parameter data dialog, which makes it difficult to predict what kind of fatigue your unit will have and makes short rest periods less effective in terms of reliably getting your force back in shape.

With a proper defensive deployment, and the means to do offer resistance, inflicting fatigue on the enemy isn't difficult in PB. What makes it seem like a feature that doesn't work right is that the effect on Disruption rolls isn't all that pronounced. Quality dropping one level doesn't cripple units immediately in the majority of cases, a C quality unit becoming D quality still has a 1/2 chance of passing its Disruption check.

More fatigue would also probably end up hurting the units that are in my opinion already too weak, namely all those C quality low SA Commonwealth infantry units, even weaker compared to A and B quality German units that have high SA values and quality bonuses to nullify or reduce the impact of fatigue.

Increased fatigue gain and an overall higher disruption/broken chance are some of those "careful what you wish for" kind of things.

[wiggum]

Increased fatigue gain and an overall higher disruption/broken chance are some of those "careful what you wish for" kind of things.

But currently it feels more like a bordgame then a realistic wargame, fire & movement is portrayed badly, in my opinion we need more Disruption and Broken results even if this means some scenarios are harder or even impossible to win, i dont care. I just want PzB to feel more realistic.

[ComradeP]

Being a hex-based wargame, it is indeed similar to a boardgame, but that's both a weakness and a strength of the game.

"Realistic" is not a clearly defined set of conditions. If a wargame is supposed to model the real war, units would advance very slowly and would in many cases not follow your orders as they might lead to unacceptable losses.

You would need to change the whole system as currently:

-Units take unrealistically high losses.
-Combat is abstracted, units fire from hex to hex not to units at a certain range in meters.
-Vehicle and gun combat is fairly abstract.
-All units belonging to a certain formation act as artillery spotters, regardless of how likely it is that they would have had a radio with a direct link to the artillery units they spot for. There are no navy or air force liaisons, nor artillery observers.
-General supply, fuel and ammunition deliveries are heavily abstracted.
-Transportation assets are abstracted.
-The impact of terrain is abstracted into a percentage modifier.

and so forth.

Instead of changing the disruption and broken mechanic, because it is felt it isn't realistic, you could also ask for more realistic (as in: lower) losses so units are less likely to disrupt or break, or ask that any other point listed above or some other point is changed. It's a path without a clear end where "realism" is achieved.

Something like an increased chance to disrupt when taking more than a certain number of losses or losing more than a certain percentage of remaining strength might be a more elegant solution than a radicaly overhaul of the system.

This is a game at its core, not a simulation, and even wargames that come closer to simulations, like the Command Ops series, include numerous unrealistic aspects. Logistics tend to be abstracted in virtually all wargames, the focus is on the fighting.

I have issues with certain mechanics that make the system less consistent, like how direct fire results against units composed of men are calculated directly whilst vehicle and gun losses are abstracted through a die roll, but not with the system as a whole.