Panzer Campaigns update

[Fhil]

Gentlemen,

As a response to the great news announced regarding the upcoming update of our beloved Panzer Campaigns, I would like to share some thoughts with you regarding the current state of the series, especially one issue.
First of all, I want to thank the guys that they are taking care about the series.
Secondly, I want to state, that this is not some crying for a new engine or something like that, we´ll be talking about a particular correction to the system, which I believe shouldn´t be technically so difficult to execute provided you have the needed access, yet it would have a major impact on the game in the positive sense, without throwing the campaigns and scenarios off balance, but rather balancing them back as they are mostly too off-tracks currently.
Thirdly, written below will mostly be true for those titles covering the eastern front, although also generally valid for the rest of the titles as well.
Fourthly, this will be a really long post, prepare yourself! 

So, let´s get to the matter.
I´ve played every big eastern campaign game except for Rzhev and Moscow ´43 and many smaller scenarios, plus all the major western main campaigns except for France ´40.
And after all the engine updates done to them so far, I must say thatmany of the big campaigns are simply unplayable, thrown too much off-balance. Now, don´t see me as a guy that doesn´t enjoy the game from the moment he looses. Yes, I didn´t finish some games, I think it happens to everyone from time to time, but it was never because of the upcoming defeat or something like that. I usually play and enjoy my games to the final turn, if there is a sense in it of course. I consider myself a very experienced player.
Although these updates thrown the game off balance and there are more issues that demands fixing, there is one particular thing that hampers the game from the beginning, an unlucky choice to the system. And I think that cancelling it´s effect would help really greatly.
The system rule I´m talking about is this one simple thing: Disrupted units have half their movement allowance.

This single simple rule breaks most of the potentially strategically interesting campaigns into a some kind of a shooter on a map with counters. Cannot find better description than this.
Again, this is mostôy true for the eastern titles. Germans have too many bonuses on their side, coupled with sometimes an unlucky scenario design (no low supply in some scenarios where historically experienced, many times no fatigue or losses on their units) the scenario is unplayable, unless you´re playing a real rookie on the Axis side. I will explain in better detail below, with some examples to illustrate.

Now, the combat doesn´t go realistically at all, I know we can´t reach a super realism, but this is way too far from any realism. (we´re talking mainly about the big campaigns on the eastern front).
In reality, even badly shattered and beaten Soviet formations back in for the disastrous years 1941 and 1942  were able to retreat back hundreds of kilometers (while keeping their heavy weapons) with their enemy chasing them!
They were not able do to so only if forbidden to do so or if they were trapped in a pocket (usually a big operationally created pocket), which was reached using the panzer corps on the flanks, breaking through and cutting them off somewhere in their deep rear.

Now these games are called Panzer Campaigns right? But they lack what was  operationally so fascinating on them - even German panzer divisions were not so powerfull to just advance all along the front and beat the enemy on the spot. That´s why they had to employ such strategy, especially against so horiffically numerous Red Army. But in these games, the panzers are used just like a shotgun in a shooter game :/

These titles are archetypal for such operational situations: Smolensk ´41, Kharkov ´42, Moscow ´41.
Let´s take a look on Smolensk main campaigns for example:

Gentlemen,

As a response to the great news announced regarding the upcoming update of our beloved Panzer Campaigns, I would like to share some thoughts with you regarding the current state of the series, especially one it´s issue.
First of all, I want to thank the guys they are taking care about the series.
Secondly, I want to state, that this is not a cry for a new engine or something like that, we´ll be talking about a particular correction to the system, which I believe shouldn´t be technically so difficult to execute provided you have the needed access.
Yet, it would have a major impact on the game in the positive sense, without throwing the campaigns and scenario off balance, rather balancing them back as they are mostly too off-tracks currently.
Thirdly, written below will mostly be true for those titles covering the eastern front, although valid for the rest of the titles as well.
Fourthly, this will be a really long post

So, let´s get to the matter.
I´ve played every big eastern campaign game, and many smaller scenarios, plus all the mayor western main campaigns except for France ´40.
And after all the engine updates done to them so far, many of the big campaigns are unplayable, thrown too much off-balance. Now, don´t see me as a guy that doesn´t enjoy the game from the moment he looses. Yes, I didn´t finish some games, I think it happens to everyone from time to time, but it was never because of the upcoming defeat. I usually play and enjoy my games to the final turn, if there is a sense in it of course. I consider myself a very experienced player.
Although these updates thrown the game off balance and there are more issues that demands fixing, there is one particular thing that hampers the game from the beginning, an unlucky choice to the system. And I think that cancelling it´s effect would help really greatly.
The system rule I´m talking about is this one simple thing: Disrupted units have half their movement allowance.

This single simple rule breaks most of the potentially strategically interesting campaigns into a some kind of a shooter on a map with counters.
Again, this is most true for the eastern titles. Germans have too many bonuses on their side, coupled with a unlucky scenario design (no low supply in some scenarios, many times no fatigue or losses on their units) the scenario is unplayable, unless you´re playing a real rookie on the Axis side. I will explain in better detail below, with some examples to illustrate.

Now, the combat doesn´t go realistically, I know we can´t reach a super realism, but this is way too far from any realism. (we´re talking mainly about the big campaigns on the eastern front).
In reality, even badly shattered and beaten Soviet formations back in for them the disastrous years 1941 and 1942  were able to retreat back hundreds of kilometers (keeping their heavy weapons) with their enemy chasing them!
They were not able do to so only if they were trapped in a pocket (usually a big operationally created pocket), which was reached using the panzer corps on the flanks, breaking through and cutting them off somewhere in their deep rear.
These titles are archetypal for such operational situations: Smolensk ´41, Kharkov ´42, Moscow ´41.
Let´s take a look on Smolensk main campaigns for example:


Main campaign scenario, looks interesting with plenty of options for both sides.


Second campaign scenario, few days later. Shows us how the situation operationally evolved historically.

Now - how many of the games you have played actually evolved into something at least similarly interesting?
I´ve played the first main campaign three or four times - twice as a German, I´ve swift across the map with many turns left. There is no need to try to create some pocket to surround Soviet armies at all. No worries like the Germans had back then. You will just beat them on the spot after meeting them in the field. Division by division. They simply cannot retreat once they will engage in combat with the German counterpart. They will disrupt, and due to losing half their movement points (and even more due to Quality modifier too, further exacerbating the problem) they will be destroyed piece by piece. An experienced player can have a master player on the soviet side against him, but he cannot loose this one, there´s no chance.
Playing twice as Soviets, I was once able to even destroy entirely one German motorized division near Roslavl. That game was still finished the same way like me being on the German side.

I hope you´re getting the idea by now. Now I don´t say it is the fault of this rule alone. Another issue is the different OOB style for the two sides. In the very beginning, Smolensk as the first game was released as a battalion size simulation. After some time, it was ´fixed´ to the current state which was applied to all the titles - company level German side, battalion side Soviet side. This is a big issue, but doesn´t create such a problem in campaigns where there are tons of Soviet divisions attacking (Korsun, Stalingrad, Minsk for example).
But the inability to retreat properly (due to not having enough movement points) is the more severe one and demands much less work to fix than reworking the OOB.

And it´s not even something new! Please mind that this rule was left out from the FWWC! Maybe it´s designers could put some insight why is that so? But there must have been a reason behind it.
I do not own any FWW title, but my information should be correct - even disrupted units move normally there. You will hardly be able to properly switch your units in the first line here if you´re units are unable to move normally. You won´t be able to retreat in the face of the pursuing enemy.
Not sure what this rule was intended to simulate in the end - but I guess it is poor command? Ok, could be, but it simply doesn´t work, there are many things not simulated in the system, Soviet side is penalized on many other levels and areas (and absolutely correctly in many instances).

Now, why is there no possibility for such an interesting operational situation to ever occur?
Let´s take a look on the whole unlucky recipe:

- Different OOB structure, which basically allows the Germans to surround every single battalion of the Soviet division using just 1/3rd of it´s force. (impossible to fix for the already existing scenarios - too much time and work)
- Disrupted units have half of their movement allowance - the issue we´re talking about (more or less easy to fix I believe, there must be a code responsible for this)
- Quality movement allowance modifier - further exacerbating the problem, most German panzers are A, most infantry B, thus majority of German forces receive bonus. Most Russian units are D(which already receives penalty to MP), few turns of combat and they are E already, couple that with a disruption and/or low on ammo and you are moving one hex per move, two if you are lucky. Nothing realistic, once the unit starts retreating, it´s soldiers, cars, horses move normally. (it would be best to have this cancelled as well, a tank with a happy german crew moves the same speed like with the sad tank crew, it is the type of terrain, type of vehicle that decides at what speed it moves). This was incorporated sometimes later with one of the updates. I don´t think it was needed at all, just moved the game off-balance even more.
- Low Fuel effects - this rule is absolutely correct, shouldn´t be changed I believe, it´s also affecting only motorized units, but I have to put it here as it is affecting also the movement. (no need to change, so or so it´s an optional rule).
- Night turns being 4 hours - might surprise you, but this is an important thing as well. Many retreats, switching of units in the frontline, reserves buildup and similar maneuvers were executed at night under the cover of darkness. Now the Soviet army for example, in the Smolensk campaign as well, was able to move almost only during the night, as formations moving during daylight received an immediate attention from Luftwaffe and were badly beaten even before reaching the front. Now, under current conditions, it´s absolutely the opposite. You are able to move only half of what you would move during the day turns. (8 hours = 4 day turns, but only 2 night turns). Nothing unrealistic as well, a T-34 tank will move just the same distance on the road whether is it day or night for example. And the fuel test is executed during the midnight as far as I know, which is not good for a long column of motorized forces. Once the units doesn´t pass it (it´s HQ is probably in Travel mode some hexes ahead/behind) and it becomes low on Fuel, it will be punished further, so you may finish up with moving 1/4 of what you could at night. (This is very easy to fix using the pdt editor, but for every night there is you´d have to add 2 more turns to the scenario lenght in order to not damage it). Don´t take my calculations too strictly, they are a guess.

As you can see, some other issues are pretty big also, but the second ingredient is the most severe. While the others make it more or less difficult or you as a defender, this one gives you no chance. The units are thus too short lived once thrown into battle, and that is true for Germans in the later titles also, it is not exclusive to the Red Army, it just has the biggest effect on it and thus making those early campaigns simply unplayable (if you wan´t to have some real challenge of course and enjoy the game meanwhile).


Take a look on this map, depicting the retreat of Soviet armies (mostly rifle divisions) hundreds of kilometers back, some of them barely escaping the encirclement. Some of them were so badly beaten they were sent to the far rear to rebuild and reorganize, not coming back to see combat for months. Yet before that, they were able to normally move back once receiving such orders, with all the German might falling on them and pursuing them.


Here´s the scenario The Don Bend from Stalingrad ´42. It suffers from that recipe really extremely. Highly unplayable. Give me whoever on the Soviet side, I will beat him, he doesn´t have a chance, not because I am experienced and he wouldn´t be. The current system doesn´t give him a chance!



Yet historically, take a look on the situation after few days: very interesting. Although some situations resulted from too late orders to retreat or to not retreat at all, it doesn´t change the situation. There is not much to enjoy in such a scenario, unless you are a guy that pursuits some easy victory and than you are proud what a good commander you are :) There is even one hidden ingredient that throws this particular scenario off balance - the German forces experienced such a bad supply situation here, that the 6th Army had to switch do the defense after two days, there was no fuel to finish the intended encirclement of the Soviet 62nd Army. No such supply problems are addressed in the scenario, but that is a scenario designer´s decision and also can be easily fixed using the scenario editor (Supply changes).


What can a 13-counters Soviet division unable to break down and mainly unable to retreat do against 50+ counters single German division? All panzers are A quality, 0 fatigue and with only really minimal losses. Yet this division didn´t perish right there like it will everytime you will play this. And an argument that you can start withdrawing from turn 1 is not valid and does not solves the problem at all. It will end up having every single battalion isolated from behind, because the A quality units just have to break through one of them in order to get behing and find and trap every single one of them.



There are countless more examples: impossibility to retreat with the Romanians in the Uranus campaign (once they are disrupted, they are gone forever, they will be consumed), impossibility to retreat properly in Vyazma or Moscow campaign, Kharkov campaign - souther Soviet part of the bulge is basically few Soviet units exactly the same like in the example above against 6 times more A quality unit counters on the German side etc. etc. Don´t think that the small scenario do not suffer greatly from this, it´s just digestible somewhat in those as it cannot show itself so well.

The point is - these battles were not decided by surrounding enemy battalions, companies unit by unit, not even Normandy, although that was a different type of battle. You had to rout your enemy in order to break through and than based on the particular operational plan try to surround as big part of his forces as possible and as soonest as possible. Name any big operation, it will very probably involve some kind of at least an overall idea to isolate and capture the enemy, if not being it the target of the offensive/counteroffensive, as it is simply the fastest way to defeat him.

Yet the Panzer Campaigns due to the above stated areunplayable in such a way. Yes, Normandy works, Salerno, Sicily Anzio also, even Bulge ´44, even Sealion ´40 (played all of them). Why? First of all, there is a match in  theOOB structure - it is the same structure, company based on both sides. That is a huge, huge difference. Another thing is the basically similar quality of units on both sides and also these battles are not such operational- maneuver campaigns, rather tactical-maneuver battles. From the eastern front, only the titles that involve the Red Army on the attack are playable - Korsun, Minsk, although there are often other specific problems too but they are playable and enjoyable.

So, this way, I would like to ask you guys responsible for this update, erase that rule from the system. It won´t heal everything, but it will help more than anything else. If you are afraid it would out-balance the scenarios (which are unbalaced at this state, many rounds of updates were implemented also without any playtesting), please make it or them (if we would count the quality movement modifier) at least optional.

It is said that the Panzer Campaigns favour the attacker. Well, it is indeed slightly worse. After all the years, the only help that the defender received, was the Delayed Disruption Reporting without which I cannot imagine to play today. There is another help needed, otherwise your update, despite being a move forward (especially the graphics) will be like I´ve mentioned in the Scenario Design Center - painting a new colour on a broken machine :/

These games doesn´t have to be top perfect, although there is that huge potential in them, they just have to be reasonably enjoyable. I believe that you are still supporting them is because you want them to be playable even after almost 20 years like it´s in the case of Smolensk or Normandy title. I cannot help myself, but this is a must-step forward.


Please, everybody, feel free to respond, throw in some arguments for or against, your experience and view of this issue. I will be responding. I am confident though, that this is a very big issue too left out and that no update missing this will change my mind on the playability of most of the campaigns.

PS: Do I win the price for the longest opening post?

[larsonney]

I sure want a prize for reading the whole thing!!

Interesting points...I don't have the time to address most of the article, but some of your points have me thinking in ways I haven't before. Here is my 2 cents...

First, for credibility sake, I am currently playing multiple Smolensk campaigns, from both sides. I love the PZC systems, but I would disagree with you that there are flaws in the game design...instead, I believe that players "game" the campaigns more than what happened in real life, regardless of what rules the engine uses.

For example:

Generally, I pocket and destroy, then move on...or try to leapfrog a couple of divisions using that process. This usually means I move slower than historically, at least when I compare my strategic map to a historical map. But I clear the map behind me, something not done historically (Hence the "game" comment above.

In a couple of Smolensk campaigns, as the Germans, I have instead bypassed parts of Soviet rifle divisions and achieved more historical results in terms of advance. However, in those instances I have then had the bypassed units show up across my LOCs in the rear much later and then spent forever trying to subdue the pesky units with scrambled reserves. Inevitably, some of the Russians disappear back into the marshes or forests, only to reappear again somewhere else later.

This is especially impacts German operations when you play explicit supply and the trucks/wagons can't get to the leading units because they are dodging Russian units in the rear!

My point is, if I play ahistorically, as I usually do and most of my opponents seem too (I have nightmares over units appearing in my rear areas!!), is that the game system or is that my style of play? This is especially true on the Eastern front (Like Smolensk), where unit density is just not sufficient to the task.

Thoughts? Jon

[Ocito80]

interesting read, and I concur for the most part.

I'm not a big fan of the disrupt mechanic. I feel it is something that can still exist, but maybe only apply to out of command units only. Without disrupt, the large soviet units can be more of a pain, potentially inflicting heavier casualties in straight on engagements. Removing, or adjusting disrupt probably wouldn't take away, but rather enhance the German need to out maneuver the soviets. As you stated, they are already gimped by the morale modifiers.

I'd like to see the OOB structure similar to the west as well, but I think the choices made were more to satisfy current game mechanics.

Another side effect of the disruption mechanic is keenly seen in the newer titles where the German player ops to to split their infantry battalion into 4 companies, then combining those 4 units into 2 slightly stronger ones. Born of necessity to combat taking on the larger soviet formations while being able to absorb fatigue that eventually helps lead to disruption. I've always had issues with the ZOC mechanic currently in game and of late have chosen adjust the PDT to allow for it in my scenarios.

Perhaps a new isolated mechanic could be introduced. Maybe a formation isn't truly isolated until their HQ is. And this could work in conjunction with the disrupt idea above. So if the HQ unit flees in an attempt to avoid a pocket, the units left behind will likely be out of command. So either way those units would be either isolated or subject to disruption.

Generally, the biggest thing I hear negative about PZC, other than the AI not being to use roads when moving, are the amount of unit counters found on some of the large campaigns. Now this doesn't bother me personally, but for many others it is an issue. And sometimes I do question the need for 4xgun (AA, Art, ATG) type units running about. Sometimes these extra units are there to create buffers along a long front line, in particular when facing the numerous soviets in the mid to late war time period. This in itself represents a flaw to me, but maybe it's just me.

Anywho, good read, good thoughts.

Thanks
Atheory

[Strela]

Hi,

We will look and see what can be migrated across from the FWWC code in regards to disruption movement.

David

[typhoon]

Great post great points well argued. More important perhaps is the life and care this game still receives. I know little about the updates except the few posts I have read here but most intrigued and excited to see what they will be all about. Strela and the like perhaps need a PR team to get the word out there. I for one would gobble up anything and everything regarding them. Graphics and the like interest me some but overhauling the system with improvements like the ones mentioned above is a much more interesting proposition.

[Pepe Botijo]

Interesting thread!

Yeah, I have also noticed most of large maps are basically unplayable in SP. The AI can´t cope with it.

[Mr Grumpy]

The first title of the FWWC series France 14 was released with the same disruption movement rules as PzC, but in a post release update that was changed to allow disrupted units to retain their full MP allowance on day moves and revert to the PzC 2/3 MP allowance on night moves, here is the detail..............

Disrupted unit movement allowance change
This change was made to encourage players to retreat from unsustainable positions rather than hang on to allow disrupted units to escape to the rear and often suffer an even worse loss of units cut off and destroyed. To stop players taking advantage of the change to be able to push disrupted units forward an additional terrain cost in MPs to move towards known/spotted enemy units was imposed, (in practise most units will only be able to move a single hex).

1) During  DAY turns, disrupted units now have full Movement Points (instead of 2/3rds under the original system)

2) During  NIGHT turns, disrupted units have 2/3 Movement Points (no change)

3) During DAY or NIGHT turns, disrupted units expend 3x terrain cost in MPs to move towards known/spotted enemy units (of course a unit will always be allowed to move one hex, as per standard movement rules)

In another slight tweak to disrupted unit movement when a good order unit is adjacent to an enemy, and that unit is disrupted by defensive fire during the current turn, its remaining MPs are reduced by 1/2. This keeps units from moving up, getting disrupted and being able to speed away at full speed (or being able to fire twice).

I will allow Ed to give the reasons for this change from the designers POV.

[Fhil]

Thank you for your replies guys, I hope there will be more :)
Let´s take it one by one as I see that some of you missed the point slightly.

larsonney: well, looks like we will disagree as I think that there is a flaw in the system. I also think that a particular ´simulation´ (game) is as good as the players playing it are, (some players are really exploting the system that allows for many gamey tactics), but even the best effort in such a way cannot save the Don Bend scenario for example.

Take a look on it from that technical point of view - is it possible to retreat in such a manner like the Soviets did when you take a look on the second Smolensk campaign? It is not. Rifle divisions simply won´t sustain so much: engaging the German forces, retreating, meanwhile slowing him down or counterattacking here and there and still be able to put up a resistance few days later. Here you can simply take Roslavl and Smolensk at once, you will simply smash everything on your way as it won´t have the chance to retreat and will be consumed where spotted. And I´m the guy that prefers Explicit Supply definitely. But that is just a Smolensk Campaign, what about the rest? Look at the lines in Moscow ´41 winter campaign. There are few soviet counters facing holding the line, just open a hole getting through two-three of them and you´re rolling towards Moscow. And there are many more examples.

But I have to agree with you regarding many players playing ahistoricaly - Army / corps HQs in the front lines, mixing of units like it would be never possible, creating super packs of armor with 200 tanks etc.

Ocito80 - not sure if I understand what you mean. No way I want to cancel the disruption rule. I would like to see it´s effect on movement allowance removed. Just want to be sure we understand each other.

Regarding the rest of your reply - well, there were some decisions made (like the night turns duration) that were made to make the game more funny (are the night turns so boring?) for the players maybe, but then there is something strange happening here:

We have this historical campaigns, and we even have a What-if versions of the campaigns and scenarios. Now, it has no informative value if you cannot recreate (and I don´t mean 100%) or properly play even the historically set-up versions :/ i´m sorry but that is mostly true.

What is a paradox is that the Sealion ´40, a wholy WHAT-IF title is working perfectly. But it is because of the reasons I´ve stated above and does not suffer so much.

Strela: Thank you very much that you are even taking time to check out the stuff I wrote, I highly appreciate it. Will you keep us updated what are the possibilities, if any?

typhoon: thank you, yes, I think the games need an overhaul, though I believe there won´t be any big one soon. What I like about these games is that there were many interesting updates done to them, take such a Delayed Disruption Reporting rule. There is still much potential hidden in these games.

Pepe Botijo: Thanks, though I didn´t even consider the AI style play in my post, that is a completely different situation. You cannot expect the AI to be able to cope with such a big ammount of decisions to put up a real fight in any bigger campaign even if all of the stuff I listed was corrected - OOB structures, disruption movement allowance, quality modifier.. But working on that (the AI / SP game) would be a waste of time I believe. Don´t get me wrong, I play some small scenario against AI from time to time, but to play anything big is a waste of time.
It is nothing like playing against a human opponent.

Thank you all for now, please, keep them comming.

[ComradeP]

Interesting points.

Disruption cutting movement rates to 1/2 is, as others have mentioned, more of a problem for the Soviets or other D or lower quality units due to their movement rate just being 3 to begin with.

In most situations, I can chase and isolate Soviet units without them Disrupting immediately, due to German infantry units being able to move 4 or even 5 (German motorized infantry in Moscow '42) hexes.

The system has a number of other issues which, combined, can cause it to break the balance of a scenario.

For starters, virtually everything is tied in some way to quality and there are few limitations in place as to how quickly quality can be reduced.

The thing that breaks my Soviet line tends to be 1 man/D results, as the system is quite generous with when Disruption checks have to be passed. More casualties make it more likely that a unit has to take such a check, but there's no bottom limit. As such, breaking a Soviet fortified lines comes down to firing as often as you can with everything that can fire, as statistically speaking the Soviets will Disrupt within a day most of the time.

As there are a variety of ways quality and thus unit effectiveness can be reduced, significant differences in hard/soft values matter. This is another balance issue for Eastern Front scenarios in particular, as Soviet units tend to have SA values of 4 or 5, modified by -20% for most of them. As a result, they get butchered by B and A quality German units even without being pocketed.

The impact that having perfect information has on balance should also be taken into account. The defender often starts with a mostly Fixed force to prevent him from withdrawing from what he knows is coming. Not all scenarios are balanced in a way that gives the defender a chance to strike back later. Most of the wargames I've played have difficulties with modelling battles where a defender first has to retreat and is then expected to counterattack.

Then there's the ineffectiveness of mobile units compared to their real-life counterparts. In games where mobile infantry has a movement rate of 4 hexes, you can't assault after moving two hexes. With 5 you can, but I don't know if that's normal for other PzC games than Moscow '42. This combined with locking ZOCs means infantry units can't break through a line by themselves if the enemy keeps withdrawing.

Normally, you would counter that with moving faster units. The problem is that earl-mid war tank units in PzC are very weak compared to their real-life counterparts, particularly German tanks.

Low SA values, low defence values, mediocre assault values and a relative strength in men of 1-2 companies make it difficult to do much with them against a defender who knows what he is doing. Add to that the fact that infantry assaulting tanks faces no significant penalties, and you have a situation where a mobile breakthrough is difficult to create.

This is one of the reasons why you need to be able to kill something, instead of being unable to catch up to retreating units.

Casualty points in campaign scenarios tend to be worth more than objectives close to the initial frontline, so trading ground for keeping your men alive tends to be a solid strategy.

Which leads to another point: replacements are abstracted to either a percentage of total strength, or a percentage of the number of men/guns/vehicles the unit is missing. There are no hard caps, nor any production limitations. In battles where the defender, usually the Germans, suffered from shortages in men and equipment, parking your units in the rear for a day or two will have them close to full strength or at the least return them to a quite powerful state.

Should the attacker face difficult terrain (like in, say, Normandy) or have slower units (say Kharkov '43) it is difficult to deal with German defenders that can recover from most losses. Read some of the Normandy/Kharkov AAR's on this forum: in most of them, the Germans simply retreat for a while and recover losses at a very ahistorical rate. This makes it difficult to kill units.

FWWC faces a similar problem: though it's 1914, competent defending players play it like it's 1916. As we have perfect information, we know how deadly MG's are and how pointless it is to attack a defence in depth without (indirect fire) artillery support. Find some good terrain, dig-in and let the attacker massacre itself. It may very well not turn into the historical war of movement.

If you read some of the comments about the France '14 campaign game, for example, one of the issues raised is that the Entente could in earlier versions simply dig-in close to the initial frontline and the Central Powers couldn't really make much of an impression as replacement rates are fairly generous and fatigue matters more than losses, also due to the infantry losses/effectiveness modifier making it difficult to truly cripple infantry units.

Such a situation might also appear in PzC games if Disrupted defenders would be allowed to withdraw at full movement rate, particularly if the Soviets would at some point be able to move 4 hexes with regular Rifle units.

In FWWC, you have no real breakthrough or exploitation units. In early-mid war PzC, your breakthrough units are not very impressive aside from the infantry.

Giving Disrupted defenders full movement rate would not address issues such as the relative ease with which lower quality units Disrupt in the first place, disparity in attack values making it difficult to hold a line as the Soviets, or the inability of the Soviets to retreat in an effective manner due to the multitude of Fixed units, even with 3 hexes/turn movement. If units from the initial line are also supposed to hold the second, things can quickly become hairy for the Soviets.

Disrupted defenders having 1/2 movement is one of the many reasons why the Soviets or other low quality armies have a hard time, but I would say it is not the most prominent one. Rather, I'd say it's a combination of mechanics that make it difficult for the Soviets to hold.

The situation in Panzer Battles is in some ways worse instead of better, as days last longer and nights are short, so you can't retreat and rest your units in most cases. This also makes a disparity in attack values even worse for the side with the lower values. A quality mobile units attack with an adjusted SA value of 17.5 or 18 (the quality fire modifier is 2.5 times normal, so +50% for A quality units), facing 4 SA D quality Rifle units or for example 6 SA C quality Commonwealth units. The Germans also tend to have range 4 with the Allies and Soviets at range 3.

[BigDuke66]

For now the changes sound more like a new paint on the wall. Basically it's nothing that the user haven't been doing all the time, they used graphic & sound mods, they used Volcano Mans scenarios instead of the stock scenarios.

For me it would already be a good step of improving the engine if the PDT files get specific entries for all forces maybe even sub forces, like Wehrmacht, SS, Regular, Guard, etc. There are already some entries like Air Availability that allow specific values for each side but I would like to see this for all entries, by that each force can be model stronger. Because it really makes a difference when looking at the FWWC series and how the forces are modeled there and that the specific advantages and disadvantages of each sides play a role.

Another thing I would like to see improved is the UI, there are so many useful things in the engine but using them is often a pain in the butt, that is why external tools like hotkey and external OOB tools are used to make the possibilities of the engine better accessible. I really hope we see some improvements here.



Regarding the actual content, all HPS/JTS games have suffered from the fact that there is no spot in which the developer & publisher are really concentrated and present. Yes there is a board but it's as populated as the damned desert is wet. But it's not alone the fault of the developer & publisher but also the player base, they must give constructive feedback to improve a scenario.
Good improvements to a game are usually done in some club, take the Napoleonic series where the main designer is in the Napoleonic Wargame Club and is sometimes reacting within a day to problems that show up within a scenario. Or take the FWWC series where Ed is here on this board and is also usually quick to react to any post concerning a scenario of his series.
I really would like to see such feedback section for every game on this board too because you have to make it easy for the designers to collect feedback from a broad mass of players to come to a conclusion if and how to fix things.