Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Obviously, this would present a challenge for WW2 tactical games in that the disparity in mobility between vehicles and ground-pounders is so dramatic. I have a hypothesis of sorts that it's this disparity that leads some players to prefer armour over infantry play in games where the scaling between the infantry's movement increment and the map size becomes (too) great.

You don't have to make infantry move at an unrealistically fast pace. You can slow armor down. In fact in PCK armor moves at a cautious pace. For an example if a Panther moved at its real sustained road speed of 46 km/h it could transit the map in a single turn. But it moves at more cautious cross-country pace. Still like almost all tanks it is faster than infantry.

ORIGINAL: Mobius
For an example if a Panther moved at its real sustained road speed of 46 km/h it could transit the map in a single turn. But it moves at more cautious cross-country pace. Still like almost all tanks it is faster than infantry.

Mobius,

I may have missed it ...

Considering the tank speed represents a cautious move, is the RUSH command simulating your "bonus move" from PW?

Also, i was going to ask about the possiblity of having vehicles breakdown but since they're using a cautious move the subject is moot. However, where there any ideas (that I missed in other threads) about having vehicles bogdown at all ... in muddy terrain locations, etc?

Thanks,
Rob

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Considering the tank speed represents a cautious move, is the RUSH command simulating your "bonus move" from PW?

No. That is ordinary cross-country movement. There no road speed that I can find. To get it in PW they have keep on the road the entire turn. There is no pro-rating. (I tried to keep it simple.)

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Also, i was going to ask about the possiblity of having vehicles breakdown but since they're using a cautious move the subject is moot. However, where there any ideas (that I missed in other threads) about having vehicles bogdown at all ... in muddy terrain locations, etc?

There is no break-downs. There are no gun jams either. One thing I liked in PW and kept players from firing at extreme ranges. Every shot had a small % chance of a gun jam. If jammed the AFV had to wait to the end of the phase to try to fix it. So the player would have to weigh the small chance of a gun jam against the small chance of a hit at maximum range.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

There is no break-downs. There are no gun jams either. One thing I liked in PW and kept players from firing at extreme ranges. Every shot had a small % chance of a gun jam. If jammed the AFV had to wait to the end of the phase to try to fix it. So the player would have to weigh the small chance of a gun jam against the small chance of a hit at maximum range.

About gun jams ...
I've forgotten where I read it (might have been Ken Tout's TANK!), when the round didn't fire they had to wait for a period of time before considering it safe to remove the round from the chamber and toss it overboard. I think your realistic PW rule would fit nicely in PC. I'll look forward to when they can add it.

Thanks,
Rob

ORIGINAL: Mraah
About gun jams ...
I've forgotten where I read it (might have been Ken Tout's TANK!), when the round didn't fire they had to wait for a period of time before considering it safe to remove the round from the chamber and toss it overboard. I think your realistic PW rule would fit nicely in PC. I'll look forward to when they can add it.

I hope its added too. Gun stoppages/jams could be used to represent other temporary damage too. In the book 'Panzer Gunner' a MK IV4 takes a glancing hit to the turret which jammed it and it could no longer aim its gun. (They never did fix it.) But in the game maybe something like this could be repaired. You might get the 'feeling' if there were some more variety to damage.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Obviously, this would present a challenge for WW2 tactical games in that the disparity in mobility between vehicles and ground-pounders is so dramatic. I have a hypothesis of sorts that it's this disparity that leads some players to prefer armour over infantry play in games where the scaling between the infantry's movement increment and the map size becomes (too) great.

You don't have to make infantry move at an unrealistically fast pace. You can slow armor down. In fact in PCK armor moves at a cautious pace. For an example if a Panther moved at its real sustained road speed of 46 km/h it could transit the map in a single turn. But it moves at more cautious cross-country pace. Still like almost all tanks it is faster than infantry.

Infantry "Rushing" in PzCK are real quick imho, and doesn't tire, this may help having inf and tanks move together but seems a bit unrealistic.

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Infantry "Rushing" in PzCK are real quick imho, and doesn't tire, this may help having inf and tanks move together but seems a bit unrealistic.

Actually, infantry "Rushing" are set at a pretty sustainable (given no fatigue) pace considering combat gear. It's quick, but they could certainly go faster. If we added some sort of fatigue or cool-down in the future we'd probably speed infantry up a bit more.