Stacking and Panzerbush

Moderators: Hubert Cater, BillRunacre

Post Reply
solipsismMatrix
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:34 pm

Stacking and Panzerbush

Post by solipsismMatrix »

Let's see if this resonates.

Panzerbush

Those of us who have been around for a while will recognize the term. Naval combat is much, much more flexible, as is high-movement land combat, but suffers from "panzerbush" (hopping from cover-to-cover in full sight of the enemy, or attacking and running away to a hidden location) is an issue. The solution, from Panzer Leader, is to allow opportunity fire if a unit expends at least 1/4 of it's action points within range of a unit that a) can hit it and b) is set to do so (e.g., to do interdiction fire, either artillery or aircraft).

I think this would materially improve the mechanics and make aircraft - and artillery - all the more useful to spot and hinder, say, an amphibious invasion, or a bunch of battleships doing a drive-by shooting of a land unit, all the while a bomber just sits there and watches as the battleships disappear into the distance.


Stacking, aka "the malta problem"

Malta is the key to the Med, and it should be difficult to take. As-is, because we can't stack, it is easy to take with a few ground-attack bombers and some fighters to spot and soak-up the air defences. Nuke the AD unit, drop a paratrooper in, and bingo, Malta has fallen.

Same thing applies to Gibralter.

I have the sense that this may be beating a dead horse - if so, it needs a few more hits ;)
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Stacking and Panzerbush

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Panzerbush
I have not been around for a while, but opportunity fire sounds interesting and I'd love to test it out. As it is now, my common practice when playing as the Axis is to load up the ports in NW Europe with naval units and then wait for the computer to leave a unit within striking range where I can hit him multiple times and eliminate him then head back to safety. It is fun, but not realistic. [I should also mention that most of the time the computer does keep his naval units just outside of my striking range, thus frustrating my naval strategy. Nice work Hubert!].
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Stacking and Panzerbush

Post by sPzAbt653 »

"the Malta problem"
I think I'll have to partially disagree with you on this subject, based on history. Malta was well covered by Axis airbases in Libya and Sicily, and had no such support of its own. Up until 1942 Malta was garrisoned by a couple battalions of infantry and a handful of obsolete aircraft. The reason it wasn't taken by the Axis was that Hitler wasn't enthusiastic about taking German casualties in what he deemed an Italian cause [plus Hitler failed to grasp the significance of Malta at the time], and the Italians did not have enough fuel to send their fleet in support of an amphibious invasion. So in the game, taking Malta should require a significant investment of resources to take, and it does. Now, in 1942 the UK increased the garrison at Malta to a couple brigades, more aircraft and AA units, enough to make it a much tougher target. With the Allied capture of Libya and Tunisia in 1943, the air cover they could provide to Malta made it a foolish target. I'm not sure if the game can do it, but it would seem fair that the Allies be able to somehow reinforce Malta in 1942.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Stacking and Panzerbush

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Gibraltar
This place was even more indefensible than Malta. Yes from the sea it was a tough nut, but it drew its fresh water supply from Spain. It also had no local air support [it had its own airbase but it was located north of the 'rock' and separated from Spain by a string of barbed wire]. It could not house a large garrison at all [Germany's actual plan to attack it involved two regiments]. If Spain had cut the water supply, the Germans could sit back for a couple of weeks until the garrison surrendered. The Royal Navy would not be able to intervene due to Axis land based air units. This situation is well represented in the game.
solipsismMatrix
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:34 pm

RE: Stacking and Panzerbush

Post by solipsismMatrix »

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Panzerbush
I have not been around for a while, but opportunity fire sounds interesting and I'd love to test it out. As it is now, my common practice when playing as the Axis is to load up the ports in NW Europe with naval units and then wait for the computer to leave a unit within striking range where I can hit him multiple times and eliminate him then head back to safety. It is fun, but not realistic.[...]
Yes, that's part of what I'm talking about. If the AI tac air could interdict, it would be entirely different - and a lot more realistic.
solipsismMatrix
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:34 pm

RE: Stacking and Panzerbush

Post by solipsismMatrix »

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

"the Malta problem"
I think I'll have to partially disagree with you on this subject, based on history.[...]taking Malta should require a significant investment of resources to take, and it does[...]
Thanks for the history lesson, well taken.

I'm just not so sure that taking Malta requires a ton of resources, and it still leaves stacking as an issue. Again, not sure if that's a dead horse or not, but it's an issue all over the place. I used Malta and Gibralter as examples.
dhucul2011
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:32 pm

RE: Stacking and Panzerbush

Post by dhucul2011 »

Stacking horse died quite awhile ago....[;)]
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe Public Beta”