View Full Version : HQ Units
Is it just me, or are HQ units more difficult to disrupt than other units?
Also, does anybody else think that HQ units should be allowed to dig in? Maybe at a price such as being out of command for a turn?
Glenn Saunders
17 Sep 06, 14:44
Is it just me, or are HQ units more difficult to disrupt than other units?
Well, it isn't just you as I've seen people suggest this before. In PzC, combat is a mathematical calculation based mainly on Hard or SOFT Target, with terrain and fort modifers. When ALT Fire rules are on there is also a target density effect which could account for some of this I suppose.
But there is nothing in the code that makes it hard and in theroy, if you wanted to check this effect out - make up a test scn with one HQ unit and one foot Inf unit on one side. Make them the same strength, although the Inf unit should have a higher Def strength - the default is 16 I believe.
Add to this scn two enemy Arty units in site of the HQ and INF unit. I'd repeat the test shots around 10 time to see a result. Then maybe repeat the 10 shots to compare two sets of test data. But there is nothing in the rules which make HQs harder to disrupt.
*** Howver, we had been looking for ways to strength the Command and control aspects of the game and after the next round of updates, due out at some point after the next game is released, we've made a change that you will be interested in.
> - Change so that indirect fire is twice as disruptive to HQ units as
normal.
Also, does anybody else think that HQ units should be allowed to dig in? Maybe at a price such as being out of command for a turn?
We disabled this function because players were just doing too many GAMEY things - mainly in PBEM game with HQ units which were added to the game to COMMAND not to run around and build a secondary def line.
This because more prevalent in games which had RHQ units - so much so that we felt we had to disable it. HQs are to command. Each Div normally has an Eng unit and in the case of German and Western Allied Divisions this Eng can divide into 3x coys. This is the correct unit to use for building forts.
In anycase, even if an HQ could somehow build its own fort, it would only add to your perception that it was harder to disrupt when what you want and what we indend too is for more HQ disruption.
Glenn
Well, it isn't just you as I've seen people suggest this before. In PzC, combat is a mathematical calculation based mainly on Hard or SOFT Target, with terrain and fort modifers. When ALT Fire rules are on there is also a target density effect which could account for some of this I suppose.
But there is nothing in the code that makes it hard and in theroy, if you wanted to check this effect out - make up a test scn with one HQ unit and one foot Inf unit on one side. Make them the same strength, although the Inf unit should have a higher Def strength - the default is 16 I believe.
Add to this scn two enemy Arty units in site of the HQ and INF unit. I'd repeat the test shots around 10 time to see a result. Then maybe repeat the 10 shots to compare two sets of test data. But there is nothing in the rules which make HQs harder to disrupt.
*** Howver, we had been looking for ways to strength the Command and control aspects of the game and after the next round of updates, due out at some point after the next game is released, we've made a change that you will be interested in.
> - Change so that indirect fire is twice as disruptive to HQ units as
normal.
I think I'll try this later today with Smolensk.
We disabled this function because players were just doing too many GAMEY things - mainly in PBEM game with HQ units which were added to the game to COMMAND not to run around and build a secondary def line.
This because more prevalent in games which had RHQ units - so much so that we felt we had to disable it. HQs are to command. Each Div normally has an Eng unit and in the case of German and Western Allied Divisions this Eng can divide into 3x coys. This is the correct unit to use for building forts.
In anycase, even if an HQ could somehow build its own fort, it would only add to your perception that it was harder to disrupt when what you want and what we indend too is for more HQ disruption.
Glenn
Makes sense. :)
Maybe the same code that lowers the fort value when a unit leaves a hex could be modified to lower the fort value to zero when a HQ unit leaves a hex and is the last unit there.
Glenn Saunders
18 Sep 06, 01:03
Maybe the same code that lowers the fort value when a unit leaves a hex could be modified to lower the fort value to zero when a HQ unit leaves a hex and is the last unit there.
Allowing them to build forts, even for themselves would do nothing toward correcting the perception that they might be harder to disrupt. And, personally, having seen how HQs were abused by players who found them to be great additional engineer troops to build rear defenese, I am satified with how the game is working now and would rather not undo the change which corrected the gamey tactic.
Glenn
Allowing them to build forts, even for themselves would do nothing toward correcting the perception that they might be harder to disrupt. And, personally, having seen how HQs were abused by players who found them to be great additional engineer troops to build rear defenese, I am satified with how the game is working now and would rather not undo the change which corrected the gamey tactic.
Glenn
I think you're right and that it should remain as it is now.
It got me to thinking though: Is there a way to limit the numer of times a unit can dig in in a scenario? Say a HQ can only do it once. Just curious. :)
Glenn wrote:
*** Howver, we had been looking for ways to strength the Command and control aspects of the game and after the next round of updates, due out at some point after the next game is released, we've made a change that you will be interested in.
> - Change so that indirect fire is twice as disruptive to HQ units as
normal.
I, too, have noticed that HQs are harder to disrupt than regular units but I see nothing wrong with that and am not thrilled with this upcoming rule change. While I would agree that HQs should be weaker than regular units since they contain a large portion of "non-combatant" personnel, they also contain the LEADERS of the formation who tend to be more highly motivated than the average soldier. Can one really imagine a Rommel or a Patton being freaked by an artillery barrage? I think not. Though not a fighting unit, the presence in the HQ of experienced senior combat officers should give the HQ a resilance greater than the line units.
Given the mechanics of entrenching in Panzer Campaigns, I do agree with Glenn that HQs should not be able to build entrenchments. If everybody dug their own foxholes in Panzer Campaigns I wouldn't have a problem HQs entrenching but that's not how it works. It's bad enough that tanks can "dig" entrenchments (as opposed to simply having a "hull down" rule) that can be used by other units; to add HQs digging foxholes only further distorts reality.
Jim Wirth
*** Howver, we had been looking for ways to strength the Command and control aspects of the game and after the next round of updates, due out at some point after the next game is released, we've made a change that you will be interested in.
> - Change so that indirect fire is twice as disruptive to HQ units as
normal.
A very good change. I played more than a few MG44 games where my opponent used HQ units to effectively hold me up in the polder. While I don't oject to someone using them in a pinch to hold a line for a moment, they should be even more fragile and the player should protect and harbor them.
Here's hoping a PzCamp game finds it's way to us soon!
Glenn wrote:
I, too, have noticed that HQs are harder to disrupt than regular units but I see nothing wrong with that and am not thrilled with this upcoming rule change. While I would agree that HQs should be weaker than regular units since they contain a large portion of "non-combatant" personnel, they also contain the LEADERS of the formation who tend to be more highly motivated than the average soldier. Can one really imagine a Rommel or a Patton being freaked by an artillery barrage? I think not. Though not a fighting unit, the presence in the HQ of experienced senior combat officers should give the HQ a resilance greater than the line units.
Given the mechanics of entrenching in Panzer Campaigns, I do agree with Glenn that HQs should not be able to build entrenchments. If everybody dug their own foxholes in Panzer Campaigns I wouldn't have a problem HQs entrenching but that's not how it works. It's bad enough that tanks can "dig" entrenchments (as opposed to simply having a "hull down" rule) that can be used by other units; to add HQs digging foxholes only further distorts reality.
Jim Wirth
AN HQ unit does not equal Patton. It equals his staff, their radios, their maps, the mailmen, Patton's valet, some chefs, REF's, some MP's, newsmen, hospitals, etc. Patton might take a pistol to the Me strafing him or not jump to a foxhole when a stray mortar round lands nearby, but the other would.
In the game, these assets should be protected and belong well to the rear, out of LOS and hopefully arty range. They don't belong on the front line or anywhere near it. As it stands, there is not ample enough motivations to hoard these units and protect them from harm.
Hull down in a 1 km/1 mi per hex game? I am not sure the distinction between entrenched and hull down is enough to warrant a change. (OK, sure, you could have a scout car zipping along building entrenchments in the rear and then occupy them with infantry falling back or HQ units, but that would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I find armor too valuable to be left digging entrenchments....)
I find armor too valuable to be left digging entrenchments....)
Unless you're NATO in a game of NGP and you need every last man and vehicle to keep the Steamroller at bay. :D
Glenn Saunders
19 Sep 06, 02:14
Unless you're NATO in a game of NGP and you need every last man and vehicle to keep the Steamroller at bay. :D
That is an interesting point.
Unlike a PzC of course - this game has no hostory which we need to honor. When I strated out building NGP I took the guidence of some experienced FG85 players who said that game was difficult bording on very bloody hard to win as the WP player.
So there was som attempt to balance the playing field in this instance and anything we did had to be gauged against the slow down which came into effect when we stopped the roads from running through the cities and downs to encourage the WP Player to avoid the heavily built up area.
We've had to fix things because then some NATO players discovered that flying Foot troops in Helicopters was an effective way to hold a line because of an error I had made in making the Defense value of these units too high.
Anyway - I do hope the game plays out with balance as we sure had a blank piece of paper when it came to making up this game. Sometimes you might think that is easy - but let me tell you it is harder than not having history.
Glenn
That is an interesting point.
Unlike a PzC of course - this game has no hostory which we need to honor. When I strated out building NGP I took the guidence of some experienced FG85 players who said that game was difficult bording on very bloody hard to win as the WP player.
So there was som attempt to balance the playing field in this instance and anything we did had to be gauged against the slow down which came into effect when we stopped the roads from running through the cities and downs to encourage the WP Player to avoid the heavily built up area.
We've had to fix things because then some NATO players discovered that flying Foot troops in Helicopters was an effective way to hold a line because of an error I had made in making the Defense value of these units too high.
Anyway - I do hope the game plays out with balance as we sure had a blank piece of paper when it came to making up this game. Sometimes you might think that is easy - but let me tell you it is harder than not having history.
Glenn
I enjoy the MC games, particularly NGP. I REALLY like commanding the WP forces, especially in the Germany '85 grand campaign. I've had pretty good success on the offensive. The only thing that can be a problem is the heliborne infantry, and that subject's been debated to death. :nuts: Mainly I use them to secure bridges now and do a little scouting rather than isolate units.
Hopefully the MC series is not done (hint!), but I'm not sure where else you could go. Desert Storm '91 might be doable, but how does one model the Coalition surveillance capabilities? Maybe it's a matter of setting VP levels so that Coalition force must move fast and minimize casualties in order to win.
I certainly appreciate the difficulty with hypothetical battles like this as opposed to the historicals. Any joe-blow can put together a hypothetical NATO-WP clash, but to make it *feel* historical takes a special touch when there's little but OOBs and doctrine to go off of. You guys have done that pretty well with Korea, Fulda, and NGP IMO. :)
Glenn wrote:
AN HQ unit does not equal Patton. It equals his staff, their radios, their maps, the mailmen, Patton's valet, some chefs, REF's, some MP's, newsmen, hospitals, etc. Patton might take a pistol to the Me strafing him or not jump to a foxhole when a stray mortar round lands nearby, but the other would.
In the game, these assets should be protected and belong well to the rear, out of LOS and hopefully arty range. They don't belong on the front line or anywhere near it. As it stands, there is not ample enough motivations to hoard these units and protect them from harm.
I'm not saying that the HQ equals Patton what I'm saying is that the HQs perform an important function in the game and I don't think you should make them so vulnerable that they have difficulty performing that function. I would have no problem with a rule that said the defense strength of HQs is halved against DIRECT fire and Assault, but halved against indirect fire (bombing?) I fear will result in too much disruption of HQs. As for moving the HQs to the rear to protect them, that assumes they have an adequate command range to function back there. I, for one, have trouble keeping them in range under the current rules and still protected from attack as is.
My reference to "hull down" was also not meant to be taken literally in a tactical sense, but to refer to the fact that "entrenching" for a tank unit should imply taking advantage of terrain to reduce the unit's vulnerablility to fire. I think it would have been more realistic to prohibit vehicle units from building entrenchments period and instead have a rule that said any stationary, deployed vehicle unit automatically receives a defensive benefit when subjected to direct fire attack or assault. Vehicle units could still occupy entrenchments dug for them by other combat units (and even special engineer vehicles like tank dozers), but they couldn't build them themselves.
As for armor being too valuable to dig entrenchments, that's nonsense. Rule Number 1 in Panzer Campaigns should be if you're not moving and/or not fighting, then you're digging in regardless the kind of unit, and TANKS are the best diggers in the game since they are less vulnerable to disruption than any other unit. I dig in all the time which probably explains why I can kick the crap out of the A/I regardless how unbalanced the scenario is in its favor.
I recently played a PBEM game of the Gazala scenario from EL ALAMEIN in which the Axis player's favorite tactic was to roll tanks up to just out of range of an Allied bunker and dig in. Once the tanks established the entrenchment, he'd bring up his 88s (often under the cover of darkness or a sand storm) and deploy them in the entrenchments. When the visibility improved he'd blast my units in the bunkers with the 88s. Don't tell me tanks aren't useful building entrenchments!
Jim Wirth
HQs could also represent the security and escort troops associated with them. For instance, German divisions (and Corps FTM) often had a Divisional Escort Company that had noticeable combat strength. They were many times used in combat. Throughout PzC we don't see them represented by actual units. That's why I never had a problem with HQs being used as a defensive resort ... not did I question a small unit of a few vehicles blocking the retreat of an entire btl. for the same reason. As detailed as PzC is, it is still abstract.
Just my POV
Bob
Glenn Saunders
20 Sep 06, 02:30
...As detailed as PzC is, it is still abstract.
Not just your POV Bob - there are indeed many things that are very abstract in the game system. The trick is that many things are considered and as a whole they work together pretty well.
Glenn
Not just your POV Bob - there are indeed many things that are very abstract in the game system. The trick is that many things are considered and as a whole they work together pretty well.
Glenn
Exactly!
Which is what makes it so great a system.
I recently played a PBEM game of the Gazala scenario from EL ALAMEIN in which the Axis player's favorite tactic was to roll tanks up to just out of range of an Allied bunker and dig in. Once the tanks established the entrenchment, he'd bring up his 88s (often under the cover of darkness or a sand storm) and deploy them in the entrenchments. When the visibility improved he'd blast my units in the bunkers with the 88s. Don't tell me tanks aren't useful building entrenchments!
Jim Wirth
Well clearly a gamey tactic - exploiting the rules. That's too bad. I hope I don't start seeing that as a regular tactic in my games.
But for me, I use my armor enough that when it is pulled back and doing nothing - it is resting and recovering. I believe that digging in units do not recover fatigue.
Mike wrote:
Well clearly a gamey tactic - exploiting the rules. That's too bad. I hope I don't start seeing that as a regular tactic in my games.
But for me, I use my armor enough that when it is pulled back and doing nothing - it is resting and recovering. I believe that digging in units do not recover fatigue.
What's "gamey" is that tanks can dig trenches! If you give a unit a capability, how can you blame the player for using it? This is not like faking out Opportunity Fire where you're clearly exploiting an imperfect system. Tanks are allowed to dig in. You would not have thought it gamey if the entrenchments had been dug by combat engineers but the effect (88s blasting the bunkers) would have been the same.
In what situation is it legitimate for tanks to dig in? If you can't think of one, then maybe they shouldn't have that capability.
Jim Wirth
In what situation is it legitimate for tanks to dig in? If you can't think of one, then maybe they shouldn't have that capability.
Jim Wirth
To me, tanks digging in simulates finding a hull-down position. The effect is the same, so IMO it makes no difference what the mechanism is for achieving it.
Mini-Me wrote:
To me, tanks digging in simulates finding a hull-down position. The effect is the same, so IMO it makes no difference what the mechanism is for achieving it.
If only it were tanks just getting hull down I would agree, but a tank unit can create an Improved Position/Trench that can then be "passed on" to another (not necessarily vehicle) unit entering the hex while the original tank unit moves off and the occupying unit retains "caps" status (i.e IMPROVED/TRENCH). This GAMEY tactic just makes no physical sense and my solution would be to prohibit vehicles from entrenching and just give them a defensive benefit whenever they're deployed and stationary.
Since "burrowing" tanks have been in the series since game one, there's little chance of a change being made. So if a player wants to extend the Maginot Line by building entrenchments with otherwise useless FT-17s, who am I to say he's wrong?
Jim Wirth
Consideriing the fact that I've had several infantry units in a CG of France '40 digging for the better part of 3 days (~20 turns or so) with no result, I think it a fair trade.
Seriously, does it take an infantry battalion 3 days to dig some foxholes?
Mini-Me wrote:
Consideriing the fact that I've had several infantry units in a CG of France '40 digging for the better part of 3 days (~20 turns or so) with no result, I think it a fair trade.
Wow, that is weird. While it does seem a little harder to dig in in FRANCE '40 than some of the others (probably set harder in the PDT but who ever thinks to check that stuff), I've never had that bad of luck.
As for how long it should take to dig in, here again we're facing a "one size fits all" problem. Infantry and engineers should dig in very fast, almost automatic; guns should take longer and difficulty vary by size (you might need engineer help to succeed in digging in a siege gun); vehicles, at best, should only be able to create Improved Positions (your hull down) but be able to occupy Trenchs created by other units. Based on what I've read by Glenn, this kind of detail seems to always get cut during development. The result is an "average" entrenching probablility that can cause the anomalies you've experienced in F40.
Jim Wirth
Glenn Saunders
21 Sep 06, 17:07
Mini-Me wrote:
As for how long it should take to dig in, here again we're facing a "one size fits all" problem. Infantry and engineers should dig in very fast, almost automatic;
It is not exactly one size firts all.
There is one value in the PDT which represents a percentage chance the unit digs in. But Eng unit use twice this value so there is certainly merit in using Eng to do that.
In an earlier post someone - (not sure who it was now) - said something about the Frenchcontinuing to build the Maginot Line - but of course only IPs and TRENCHes can be built in the Game - Forts and BUNKERS Can't be, In fact I am not sure how to best represent the Maginot Line in the Game so I elected in the Campaign to make this area UNPLAYABLE as it was linkly stronger a type of fighting we didn't want to represent in this PzC Title.
Glenn
Glenn wrote:
There is one value in the PDT which represents a percentage chance the unit digs in. But Eng unit use twice this value so there is certainly merit in using Eng to do that.
With that in mind Glenn, here's something to consider:
MODIFICATION TO ENTRENCHING:
Towed artillery/ATG units upgrade an IMPROVED POSITION to a TRENCH at 1/2 the base probability;
Vehicle units upgrade an IMPROVED POSITION to a TRENCH at 1/4 the base probability;
Railroad units may never dig in but they may deploy in rail hexes containing existing IMPROVED POSITIONS and TRENCHES maintained by other units.
This modification would preserve the ability of guns and vehicles to create IMPROVED POSITIONS relatively quickly for their own defense but discourage them from "trench building". The prohibition against Railroad units digging in should be in the game if it isn't already (can't recall ever trying to dig them in).
Jim Wirth
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.