Newbie Questions

[Mowgli]

Pls. ignore/delete - I have difficulties handling the quotes in this forum

Gent: 

Maybe it's time to put your scratch pad away, join the TOC ladder and get some PBeM games underway? 

That's not very constructive. 

I am already in a PBEM against another newbie and I'm also working on a little video play-through/tutorial in german. 

https://youtu.be/MbCUJjpXHOA

That's also the reason why I want to understand the rules of the game. Manual says A, but the game results in B which differs quite a bit from A. That's not very encouraging and doesn't help to make the game accessible.

[Green]

Small update:

I think the missing link in my calculations of fire combat is related to unit size. I haven't had the time to check it systematically yet, but I might be on to something (there is a system in the deviations of my calculations to the numbers shown in the game).

My suspicion is that there is a factor that gets added (in addition to the ordinary strength factor) based on unit size. I don't think that this is actually related to the "unit category" (pltn/coy/btn). I think it's just related to (on paper) strength of the component. 

I can see you are putting some serious effort into this. Personally, I suspect that you are going to find it a difficult task as almost certainly there are undocumented features in the combat calculation. But, having said that, an undocumented modifier of 1.4 seems extremely unlikely. Anything this large should at the very least be referred to in some way in the documentation.  

It is a complex game and there is a lot going on. And I am not sure how much confidence I would place in the combat dialogue CV. As I said, some things are included and some things are not. From memory, Quality and Fatigue are not (although the % effect is given in brackets). But you are saying that you are including Quality in your calculation and you are getting an accurate answer?

All I can suggest, is that if you are determined to try to replicate the combat results then you really need to compare your calculations with the final casualty results themselves. This will allow you to verify the entire calculation, rather than an intermediate CV value. You can do this by altering the .pdt file to remove the random nature of the results. Set the Low and High Values to a single value so that there is no spread. Perhaps something like 100 would work but you can experiment with different values. The key is that the values need to be high enough so that you get a large enough number of casualties to allow a meaningful calculation.

[Mowgli]

Small update:

I think the missing link in my calculations of fire combat is related to unit size. I haven't had the time to check it systematically yet, but I might be on to something (there is a system in the deviations of my calculations to the numbers shown in the game).

My suspicion is that there is a factor that gets added (in addition to the ordinary strength factor) based on unit size. I don't think that this is actually related to the "unit category" (pltn/coy/btn). I think it's just related to (on paper) strength of the component. 

I can see you are putting some serious effort into this. Personally, I suspect that you are going to find it a difficult task as almost certainly there are undocumented features in the combat calculation. But, having said that, an undocumented modifier of 1.4 seems extremely unlikely. Anything this large should at the very least be referred to in some way in the documentation.  

It is a complex game and there is a lot going on. And I am not sure how much confidence I would place in the combat dialogue CV. As I said, some things are included and some things are not. From memory, Quality and Fatigue are not (although the % effect is given in brackets). But you are saying that you are including Quality in your calculation and you are getting an accurate answer?

All I can suggest, is that if you are determined to try to replicate the combat results then you really need to compare your calculations with the final casualty results themselves. This will allow you to verify the entire calculation, rather than an intermediate CV value. You can do this by altering the .pdt file to remove the random nature of the results. Set the Low and High Values to a single value so that there is no spread. Perhaps something like 100 would work but you can experiment with different values. The key is that the values need to be high enough so that you get a large enough number of casualties to allow a meaningful calculation.

@Green: Thank you, looking at the casualties (getting rid of their randomization) is an excellent idea! I will surely try that out and report back! :) It will take me some time though.

Yes, the results I get are accurate at times, within 5% of the CV shown in the report. I suppose that these minor differences are related to different ways of rounding up/down. At other times though, the results are off by a lot - and relatively consistently so (that *1.4 occurs quite often). If the difference between the expected CV and the actual CV wasn't that big, I wouldn't even bother about it. But *1.4 is quite a big thing, so I want to know what's going on!

I think that what you say about the soft factors not being applied to the shown cv (despite being listed in brackets) is true for assaults. By contrast, what I've seen so far suggests that the soft factors (quality certainly is; fatigue affects quality, it's not a separate factor) are included in the shown cv in fire combat. Your tip (looking at non-randomized casualties) should give us an definite answer (do the casualties fit to the cv value in the report or not?).

[Green]

I think that what you say about the soft factors not being applied to the shown cv (despite being listed in brackets) is true for assaults. By contrast, what I've seen so far suggests that the soft factors (quality certainly is; fatigue affects quality, it's not a separate factor) are included in the shown cv in fire combat. Your tip (looking at non-randomized casualties) should give us an definite answer (do the casualties fit to the cv value in the report or not?).

Quality is not affected by Fatigue, or anything else. It is constant. Morale can be changed by Fatigue, among other things. The CV shows in brackets a combined % for the the Quality and the Fatigue. If you are confusing Quality and Morale, it may go some way towards explaining the odd results you are getting.

[Mowgli]

I think that what you say about the soft factors not being applied to the shown cv (despite being listed in brackets) is true for assaults. By contrast, what I've seen so far suggests that the soft factors (quality certainly is; fatigue affects quality, it's not a separate factor) are included in the shown cv in fire combat. Your tip (looking at non-randomized casualties) should give us an definite answer (do the casualties fit to the cv value in the report or not?).

Quality is not affected by Fatigue, or anything else. It is constant. Morale can be changed by Fatigue, among other things. The CV shows in brackets a combined % for the the Quality and the Fatigue. If you are confusing Quality and Morale, it may go some way towards explaining the odd results you are getting.

I always thought that morale = quality? And I was pretty certain about that one.

There is no "quality" value for units. There is only morale. Higher "quality" units get a higher base morale (e.g. A instead of C), so they are less affected by negative situations (fatigue, low ammo, etc) and less likely to disrupt/rout when they fail a morale check. As their morale is higher, they are also more likely to recover from disruption.

But of course I might be wrong.

I'm still exploring the game and finding out things the manual does not explain. Some findings:

• Commando/Ranger units can't be "isolated". (But they can still run low on ammo)
  
• Only impassable rivers seem to block supply (the smaller rivers don't).
  
• If a single unit exceeds the Road Stacking Limit all on its own, it can still use roads (if no other units are present in the target hex of the movement).
  
• The movement cost increase for elevations only applies if going uphill and applies proportionally (e.g. if the parameter data mentions 14 MP for 100m, then if your unit moves 20m uphill, the cost of the move is increased by 14*0.2) This also means that you really need to pay attention as the contur-lines/elevation steps in the game are not always at regular height-intervalls. One step on the map could be 10m, another could be 50m!
  
• The manual doesn't say a word about how spotting works in the game. [too long to explain here]...
  

But I also want to point out that the Panzer Campaign system is really excellent. In particular, I like the pace and scale. I've been playing very small scenarios so far and these are - despite the small number of units - incredibly deep with lots of options. You will not do a lot of clicking/micro management, but every click matters a lot. The learning curve is immense, especially since the documentation is mediocre, and the ingame feedback is virtually inexistent. You have to learn all the rules to understand what's going on in the game. The game doesn't tell you "this happened because of this". The game doesn't tell you a unit's chances to recover. Apart from its "improvable" user- and newbie-friendliness, there are only a few points for improvement I can think of so far:

• A "D" marker on counters of disrupted units. It works for routed/broken too, so why not for disrupted units?
  
• Overlay to see where supply can pass through/gets blocked.
  
• From a gameplay perspective, I wondered whether tank units should perhaps be allowed to pass from enemy ZoC to another enemy ZoC? (with an increased chance for eligible units to opportunity-fire on them). It's still risky as you're likely to cut your own supply. But in some cases, I felt that I should just be able to penetrate.
  
• It should be noted somewhere that most "alternative" scenarios are heavily unbalanced and not suited for PBEM games. It's a frustrating experience if you're not just playing for the narrative/realistic experience but also to win.
  
• I also wondered whether arty should cause more fatigue damage (rather than the bonus it gets for disrupting hard targets?)
  
• Should tank units during night spot enemies as "?" only, even if they're in an adjacent hex? Tank units seem to have no real advantage or vulnerability at night, which is a bit weird.
  
• Finally, it seems to me that visibility is unrealistically short in many cases? 5 km is true and realistic if you're on a (supposedly) "level" plain. Due to the curvature of the earth, you can only see so far even in excellent weather. However, if you're on an elevation, you can see much farther (down on the "curved" earth below you). It just seems strange when my troops can't even see the ocean when they're on a huge mountain 3 kms from the coastline... So, perhaps it would be a good idea to increase max. visibility by 1 for each "step" of height/elevation? When standing on a hill, you shouldn't be just allowed to see OVER obstacles, smaller hills and LOS-blocking terrain; you should also be allowed to see FARTHER! I think that 5 km maxmimum visibility is an unrealistic restriction. E.g. the german artillery observers could view the whole plain of Catania from their observation posts at the slope of mount Etna. Of course it would give artillery a boost, but in my opinion this would be a good thing and also give more importance to features that offer good observation and give operations at night more importance. Units at very long distances could be spotted as "?".

[Green]

I always thought that morale = quality? And I was pretty certain about that one.

There is no "quality" value for units. There is only morale. Higher "quality" units get a higher base morale (e.g. A instead of C), so they are less affected by negative situations (fatigue, low ammo, etc) and less likely to disrupt/rout when they fail a morale check. As their morale is higher, they are also more likely to recover from disruption.

But of course I might be wrong.

As mentioned in the Manual, 'Quality is the basis for Morale'. Quality is set in the OOB. The value is not displayed in the unit data but it can be deduced from the Morale because 'The nominal Morale of a unit will be the same as its Quality'. This means that the unmodified Morale will be the same as the Quality but of course a number of factors do modify Morale. Quality on the other hand does not change. This makes sense as Quality reflects training, experience, etc. Morale fluctuates depending on the particular circumstances faced.

[Mowgli]

I always thought that morale = quality? And I was pretty certain about that one.

There is no "quality" value for units. There is only morale. Higher "quality" units get a higher base morale (e.g. A instead of C), so they are less affected by negative situations (fatigue, low ammo, etc) and less likely to disrupt/rout when they fail a morale check. As their morale is higher, they are also more likely to recover from disruption.

But of course I might be wrong.

As mentioned in the Manual, 'Quality is the basis for Morale'. Quality is set in the OOB. The value is not displayed in the unit data but it can be deduced from the Morale because 'The nominal Morale of a unit will be the same as its Quality'. This means that the unmodified Morale will be the same as the Quality but of course a number of factors do modify Morale. Quality on the other hand does not change. This makes sense as Quality reflects training, experience, etc. Morale fluctuates depending on the particular circumstances faced.

Thank you a lot! You're correct! I've just checked it by comparing two foot units. One was disrupted and accordingly had its morale reduced from B to C. The other unit was not disrupted with morale C. Still, despite having the same current morale level, the higher quality unit had a slight advantage in movement points (26 instead of 24). That's because units with quality B get +10% on movement points (24+2.4=26 [rounded down]).

[larsonney]

Pls. ignore/delete - I have difficulties handling the quotes in this forum

Gent: 

Maybe it's time to put your scratch pad away, join the TOC ladder and get some PBeM games underway? 

That's not very constructive. 

I am already in a PBEM against another newbie and I'm also working on a little video play-through/tutorial in german. 

https://youtu.be/MbCUJjpXHOA

That's also the reason why I want to understand the rules of the game. Manual says A, but the game results in B which differs quite a bit from A. That's not very encouraging and doesn't help to make the game accessible.

Hi Mowgli! I've been away for awhile...but welcome! I think what Mike (Kool Kat) is trying to say is that people sometimes get going down the rabbit hole and lose perspective a bit...quit looking under the hood so to speak, and just play a bunch of scenarios...Now, that's easier said then done if you're an analytical guy, which it seems you may be! 

Sounds like you've already identified some inconsistencies between game documentation and play...but I hear you saying that you love many aspects of the game!!

I encountered the same inconsistencies way back when...I would recommend doing what I did: play 10-15 small scenarios with old grognards that were willing to tell me what they were doing to me as they kicked my hiney! If you ever want to play a small scenario in mirror, I don't mind telling you what I'm doing as I do it...I learned a lot that way!

After awhile...I believe you just get a "feel" for how to attack, defend, maneuver, etc. 

Good luck and I hope you stay with Panzer Campaigns...I absolutely love it and enjoy playing it!

Just my 2 cents...Cheers, Jon

[Mowgli]

I encountered the same inconsistencies way back when...I would recommend doing what I did: play 10-15 small scenarios with old grognards that were willing to tell me what they were doing to me as they kicked my hiney! If you ever want to play a small scenario in mirror, I don't mind telling you what I'm doing as I do it...I learned a lot that way!

Hey Jon! Thanks for the offer! I'd love to play a small/short scenario. Do you have any suggestions for an interesting scenario? I own Sicily and Smolensk (would prefer Smolensk as I've already played most small scenarios of Sicily). 0714_01 Monastyr Orig? I have no clue whether it's balanced, but it's only 10 turns so we can play 2 mirror matches with changing roles? Or maybe 0713_01_Gersino_Orig or 0505_01_Roslavl_Orig?

[larsonney]

I encountered the same inconsistencies way back when...I would recommend doing what I did: play 10-15 small scenarios with old grognards that were willing to tell me what they were doing to me as they kicked my hiney! If you ever want to play a small scenario in mirror, I don't mind telling you what I'm doing as I do it...I learned a lot that way!

Hey Jon! Thanks for the offer! I'd love to play a small/short scenario. Do you have any suggestions for an interesting scenario? I own Sicily and Smolensk (would prefer Smolensk as I've already played most small scenarios of Sicily). 0714_01 Monastyr Orig? I have no clue whether it's balanced, but it's only 10 turns so we can play 2 mirror matches with changing roles? Or maybe 0713_01_Gersino_Orig or 0505_01_Roslavl_Orig?

0714_01 Monastyr Orig sounds good! We can eventually work our way thru all of them! I will send you a PM with my email address...J