A Kursk PAK front every time???

[anthonykevinluke]

Evening all,

I am playing my own German campaign (97 battles) based on a core force of 14 tanks, 9 x squads and 4 x A/Cars. Three questions for those who may know:

1. I seem to find in every scenario yet played (half way through my 8th one now) that when attacking (7 out of 8 so far) I face an incredible hoard of AT guns, it would seem to rival the soviet PAK fronts at Kursk! The average is between 14 and twenty AT guns; plus Inf/tanks and off-board arty (60% 0f the time). To add to the pain 40 -50% of these guns are 76mm which can generally see and engage from one end of the map to the other (terrain pending, but sometimes they seem to have amazing line of sight!). Do others find an incrediblely high amount of AT guns?

2. As noted above I am playing a long campaign of some 97 battles. I am in my 8th battle now but only up to the 29/7/41. So nearly 10% of the allowed battles but I have only covered some six weeks ........ Is this normal?

3. I assume that when you mod an existing campaign with your own core force that the map does not increase in size to match an increase in core size?

In thanks for any comments or thoughts.

regards,

AKL

[junk2drive]

1 short answer, it depends on the percentage of points allowed and the cost of the guns.

2 it tends to be historical. Depending on the Division, you might skip a year if that Div was pulled to France or somewhere for a while.

3 the game originally was designed with only 1k maps. The map is picked at random, not based on the forces.

If you open up the files for your campaign, you will see the date range of each segment and how many battles +/- in that segment. You can also see the percentage for each category that the enemy will get. The originals seemed a bit heavy on OBA and guns. I guess to give the AI a better chance. Also Soviet use of artillery was supposedly high in RL.

I suggest that you play as long as you can stand just to get the experience, then mod a campaign better suited to your likes.

[rickier65]

I think junk2drive has already answered, but to chime in, I think the amount of Artillery and Guns the Russian AI recieves in that campaign is controlled by the files called "Presets". These files can be found in the Data/Presets folder and start with "Soviet vs 1st Panzer". I think there are 3 of them for the campaign you are playing.

These files have have the percentages of points that the AI allocates to the various unit types. These files get used in conjunction with the "Battle" files to determine the breakdown of the opposing forces. You can edit these (save the originals) and adjust these breakdowns. This has to be done before you create your campaign though, so it won't have any affect on your existing campaign. They can be edited with any text editor.

If you wanted to get more involved, you could also create new ones, but then you would also need to edit the corresponding Battle files to make sure the ones you add get used at the correct time period.

If there is enough interest, we could put together a short thread here on how to modify or even create your own custom random campaigns.

Thanks
Rick

[Andy Brown]

Wrt the Sov AT guns. I've noticed that, when I opt for 100% Sov infantry, the RBG give me a lot of man-portable (small calibre) AT guns. Quite often, they will comprise 50% of the force, which is quite frustrating when I'm trying to set up infantry-only battles.

Can this be fixed? I suspect it has something to do with making the AT guns man-portable. The system seems to consider them as infantry when, strictly speaking, they're not.

Thanks,

Andy Brown

[Mad Russian]

How are your infantry only battles working out? Besides the ATG aspect of them.

Good Hunting.

MR

[junk2drive]

Andy, the problem we faced was how Koios coded the original game. All guns were category artillery except one infantry gun on each side that were category infantry. Those infantry guns could move. Everyone complained including us that guns could not be transported or move. We created the mobile ATGs as category infantry in order to give some type of mobile gun. Unfortunately the generator cannot separate these from troops when it makes its choices. Points wise Russian troops are cheap so you end up facing hoards of them and ATGs.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive
Everyone complained including us that guns could not be transported or move. We created the mobile ATGs as category infantry in order to give some type of mobile gun. Unfortunately the generator cannot separate these from troops when it makes its choices. Points wise Russian troops are cheap so you end up facing hoards of them and ATGs.

Ooh, law of unintended consequences.

[Andy Brown]

Junk,

Understood. So far, the way I've got around it is to set the Unit Selection Pool to 5.0 to ensure there are enough non-ATG units to choose from. Half the force pool is ATGs but there are usually enough other inf units to make up a balanced force.

The other option I've tried is to edit out most of the ATGs with the scenario editor, which is OK but which does reduce the FoW for the player generating the battle.

MR,

It's really only early days yet as far as my PC: O experience goes but my initial reaction towards infantry combat is favourable. Unlike some other posters, I currently find the inf suppression routines to be appropriate and don't believe any adjustment is needed. I appreciate that many players dislike losing control of their troops but my opinion is that PC: O suitably reflects the nature of infantry combat. Lacking any means of breaking LoS, the only other option that should be available to a player whose troops are suppressed or pinned is to introduce additonal assets (indirectly or directly) to pin the pinners. I ran Boot Camp 1 a couple of times without an initial smoke mission to see what would happen and was reasonably satisified with the results. Troops advancing in the open against superior firepower should be in trouble and Boot Camp 1 seemed to adequately reflect that.

My one suggestion at this stage would be that troops, once they start retreating, don't stop until they either reach cover or are out of effective small arms range of any known enemy. If you wanted some absolute distance, to also allow for retreats/routs initiated by indirect fire, perhaps 300m would do. The stop/start routs that I saw playing Boot Camp 1 struck me as a little artificial.

I realise that PC: O is its own game and that features should not included just because similar games have them but has any thought been given to modelling platoon and company HQ units? They wouldn't impact very much on the game's mechanics but they sure would add to its atmosphere.

Cheers,

Andy

[Stridor]

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Wrt the Sov AT guns. I've noticed that, when I opt for 100% Sov infantry, the RBG give me a lot of man-portable (small calibre) AT guns. Quite often, they will comprise 50% of the force, which is quite frustrating when I'm trying to set up infantry-only battles.

Can this be fixed? I suspect it has something to do with making the AT guns man-portable. The system seems to consider them as infantry when, strictly speaking, they're not.

Thanks,

Andy Brown

One way it can be fixed is by either by making your own presets or by adjusting the prevalence data at the unit xml level.

Cheers

S

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Junk,

Understood. So far, the way I've got around it is to set the Unit Selection Pool to 5.0 to ensure there are enough non-ATG units to choose from. Half the force pool is ATGs but there are usually enough other inf units to make up a balanced force.
......

My one suggestion at this stage would be that troops, once they start retreating, don't stop until they either reach cover or are out of effective small arms range of any known enemy. If you wanted some absolute distance, to also allow for retreats/routs initiated by indirect fire, perhaps 300m would do. The stop/start routs that I saw playing Boot Camp 1 struck me as a little artificial.

I realise that PC: O is its own game and that features should not included just because similar games have them but has any thought been given to modelling platoon and company HQ units? They wouldn't impact very much on the game's mechanics but they sure would add to its atmosphere.

Cheers,

Andy

Andy,

I took another quick look, and tried a couple of things that I thought might help, but they didn't seem to. I'll look at a couple of more thngs this week. As Stridor said, creating your own preset that removes the ATGs would also be an option.

As far as HQ units, we have talked about that. Though we haven't come to any decision. There are both pros and cons of having distinct HQ units on the map.

Thanks!
Rick

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Junk,

Understood. So far, the way I've got around it is to set the Unit Selection Pool to 5.0 to ensure there are enough non-ATG units to choose from. Half the force pool is ATGs but there are usually enough other inf units to make up a balanced force.
......

My one suggestion at this stage would be that troops, once they start retreating, don't stop until they either reach cover or are out of effective small arms range of any known enemy. If you wanted some absolute distance, to also allow for retreats/routs initiated by indirect fire, perhaps 300m would do. The stop/start routs that I saw playing Boot Camp 1 struck me as a little artificial.

I realise that PC: O is its own game and that features should not included just because similar games have them but has any thought been given to modelling platoon and company HQ units? They wouldn't impact very much on the game's mechanics but they sure would add to its atmosphere.

Cheers,

Andy

Andy,

I took another quick look, and tried a couple of things that I thought might help, but they didn't seem to. I'll look at a couple of more thngs this week. As Stridor said, creating your own preset that removes the ATGs would also be an option.

As far as HQ units, we have talked about that. Though we haven't come to any decision. There are both pros and cons of having distinct HQ units on the map.

Thanks!
Rick

What are some of the cons to having HQ units on the map?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

What are some of the cons to having HQ units on the map?

One issue that would need to be addressed is how to maintain realistic fog of war if your HQ units were on the map.

Thanks
Rick

[Andy Brown]

One issue that would need to be addressed is how to maintain realistic fog of war if your HQ units were on the map.

I don't understand you here. Are you saying that it would be too easy for an opponent to recognise an HQ element and draw unreasonable conclusions about your force composition? Or are you suggesting that the HQ units would be too easy to recognise and target unfairly?

Neither of these poses any kind of unrealistic FoW issue to me. At the moment, I'm more concerned with the fact that my platoons are often a squad down because the 1st squad is hanging back looking for good OP positions.

Andy

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
Or are you suggesting that the HQ units would be too easy to recognise and target unfairly?

That's been the argument against it. Since you can count the little pixel troopen and even check them out if modeled correctly you can decapitate the command structure.

But there are two more things impeding this: 1) Currently we can’t make mixed platoons, so all units in the platoon have to be the same item. 2) The order system would have to be changed if you want to give the sub-units orders but not change the state of your HQ to allow your HQ/OP unit to hang back, as you say.

[Andy Brown]

Mobius,

Decapitating the command structure is one way to win a battle. So is protecting it. These are legitimate acts-of-war. The challenge of commanders at all levels doing their job without drawing hostile attention to themselves has been a feature of battle since time immemorial. In a wargame, it's a player problem. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other games that feature command units and nothing I've seen so far suggests it would be in PC: O.

The inability to model platoons of more than one unit type, however, is serious. I realise that PC: O's focus is tactical armoured combat but, to be honest, I find the representation of dismounted elements as a gaggle of platoons to be extremely discouraging. It looks incomplete and it certainly doesn't encourage proper tactical thought.

Initially, I don't think you need do more than find some way of combining different unit types into platoons. No need to change the order system at this stage as we're already used to working round quirks like Rushing a platoon without Rushing its leader. Later on perhaps, you could consider introducing command and leadership factors into the game mechanics based on HQ survival and proximity but there's no urgency for this. Company command units and platoons would also add to the flavour of the game but once again, the first step really doesn't need to involve anything other than just being able to represent them.

Easy to say, of course [:)]

Andy

[rickier65]

We haven't really made any decision on how to handle Command Units. But I think there are some issues on targetting HQ units, when in reality the enemy would not necessarily be able to distinquish those units from other units that might be in the same terrain. This may well be the way we go, but it will take some thought. The classic AH Squad Leader was one of my early favorites, so I would certainly agree that it would add some flavor to the Panzer Command series.

Thanks
rick

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Mobius,

Decapitating the command structure is one way to win a battle. So is protecting it. These are legitimate acts-of-war. The challenge of commanders at all levels doing their job without drawing hostile attention to themselves has been a feature of battle since time immemorial. In a wargame, it's a player problem. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other games that feature command units and nothing I've seen so far suggests it would be in PC: O.

The inability to model platoons of more than one unit type, however, is serious. I realise that PC: O's focus is tactical armoured combat but, to be honest, I find the representation of dismounted elements as a gaggle of platoons to be extremely discouraging. It looks incomplete and it certainly doesn't encourage proper tactical thought.

Initially, I don't think you need do more than find some way of combining different unit types into platoons. No need to change the order system at this stage as we're already used to working round quirks like Rushing a platoon without Rushing its leader. Later on perhaps, you could consider introducing command and leadership factors into the game mechanics based on HQ survival and proximity but there's no urgency for this. Company command units and platoons would also add to the flavour of the game but once again, the first step really doesn't need to involve anything other than just being able to represent them.

Easy to say, of course [:)]

Andy

Well, there you have it. You have just joined those of us that think the infantry system needs to be considerably tweaked. There are a lot of things PCO does really well. IMO, infantry combat isn't one of those just yet.

IF we get a chance to make changes to the current system then hopefully that will change.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Rick


We haven't really made any decision on how to handle Command Units. But I think there are some issues on targetting HQ units, when in reality the enemy would not necessarily be able to distinquish those units from other units that might be in the same terrain. This may well be the way we go, but it will take some thought. The classic AH Squad Leader was one of my early favorites, so I would certainly agree that it would add some flavor to the Panzer Command series.

Thanks
rick

Small unit leaders in tactical units routinely take the highest casualties. Due to numerous causes. Not the least of which is they are specifically targeted by enemy units.

Having leaders that perform anywhere near their historical abilities is a challenge. SL leaders were little more than cheerleaders. Running around the maps cheering on any unit that they stacked with. There was no chain of command whatsoever. Something I would really like to see the PC series model closer to actual events of WWII.


Moved the infantry discussion to:

tm.asp?m=3157345&mpage=1&key=�


Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
It doesn't seem to be an issue in other games that feature command units and nothing

That's because they fail in some way. Like MR says they are either cheerleaders that can't be individually targeted when they stack with other units or are just mini-me weak squads with little use but as a range stake for measuring command distance. To be successful as an HQ unit they must function as one not just appear on the OOB as one.

[Andy Brown]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Well, there you have it. You have just joined those of us that think the infantry system needs to be considerably tweaked.

MR,

I don't think the system needs to be considerably tweaked. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm actually quite impressed with the way suppression appears to be handled and I believe suppression to be the heart of any realistic infantry combat model. Having just used area fire to kill a Sov SMG squad cowering in its foxholes however (Boot Camp 5), I am tending to think that casualties might be awarded a little too readily. With two MG-42s hosing it down, I'd expect such a squad to be well and truly pinned to the bottom of its scrapes but it seems a bit of an ask for even German machine-guns to reach out and touch someone through several metres of earth. Unless of course the Sovs broke and took the hits as they stood up to run away.

IMO, PC: O's infantry model doesn't need a lot of tweaking although, yes, it does need some and doubtless everybody has their own views on what that should be. As an old grunt, I tend to look at command and control and soft effects before considering other stuff as these, again IMO, are tactical wargame aspects most often overlooked or incorrectly modelled.

And it's really hard to model command and control if you don't model commanders and controllers [:D]

On that note, I've almost finished the Boot Camp campaign and I can't help thinking it's been misconceived. Sure, it's achieved its aim in that I'm now familiar with the techniques I'll need to use infantry properly in PC: O. However, PC: O is clearly a platoon level simulation, by which I mean that the game's basic unit of manoeuvre is the platoon. PC: O is meant to be played by platoons. By using only one core platoon, Boot Camp encourages players to think at the squad level, which I'm not sure the system is optimised for. I'm wondering if a multi-platoon Boot Camp would make more sense.

Cheers,

Andy