Matrix Games Forums

Here is proof positive that units do in fact break in PC!

I had a tank platoon lose a tank at Kursk and break. The tank that was lost wasn't even the HQ tank as you can see from the screen shot.

Good Hunting.

MR

Now here we are in turn 6. My force is getting shot to pieces on the field and again I have units that break.

This time the HQ tank is the one killed but the other two leave the battle.

Good Hunting.

MR

MR, do you see this as a feature that ought to be expanded upon?

As is, the fallback constitutes a failure to some extent, rather than simply good judgement on the part of the affected.

Would you like to see this tweaked to reflect the relative sophistication of the units that employ it?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

MR,

Allow me to add one observation about morale ... (my opinion).

The Group morale failure is more common with 3 strength platoons than any other platoon size. When one "squad" or vehicle is destroyed it has to make 2 checks for group morale (33% loss). I found that a platoon size of 3 is probable the worse size platoon to have ... unfortunately, to be historically accurate we need to have tanks in this platoon size.

I'll bet if you set the platoon size for the Russians to a Company size force (10 tanks) then the routing would be less severe (considering the same rate of loss).

Also, from the German perspective, if he was aware that the platoon size was 3 and he saw 9 tanks approaching he could theoretically create havoc by knocking out 1 tank in each platoon ... like your example above. It would be difficult for the German to know the size of platoon but if he guesses right he'll be ahead of the game.

And, one other interesting observation about morale ... See no evil, hear no evil, then there's no evil. If you had 3 tanks in a V formation and they are all buttoned up and using the Pck sighting rule (can't see behind the tank) then in theory, if a tank is loss "out of LOS" and communication breakdown occurs then the other 2 tanks would be unaware of the loss and continue to fight or press forward if moving.

I've always thought that "borg" morale (if the term is correct) has always been an issue with wargames. What can be done?

Thanks for listening!

Rob

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

MR, do you see this as a feature that ought to be expanded upon?

As is, the fallback constitutes a failure to some extent, rather than simply good judgement on the part of the affected.

Would you like to see this tweaked to reflect the relative sophistication of the units that employ it?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

The screenshots were just proof to those that say units don't break in PC.

However, I would like to see the platoons do more natural retreats on their own. Have some kind of a check where a unit that is taking alot of fire can pull back on their own. Not necessarily breaking. But moving back to safer ground. They wouldn't have to be told to do that in real life. In the game the answer seems to be that the player is to give that order.

That could mean you are 39 seconds too late in some instances.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mraah

MR,

Allow me to add one observation about morale ... (my opinion).

The Group morale failure is more common with 3 strength platoons than any other platoon size. When one "squad" or vehicle is destroyed it has to make 2 checks for group morale (33% loss). I found that a platoon size of 3 is probable the worse size platoon to have ... unfortunately, to be historically accurate we need to have tanks in this platoon size.

I'll bet if you set the platoon size for the Russians to a Company size force (10 tanks) then the routing would be less severe (considering the same rate of loss).

If I understand your point it would seem more severe. The larger number of units checking for a morale failure would lead to more failures.

Also, from the German perspective, if he was aware that the platoon size was 3 and he saw 9 tanks approaching he could theoretically create havoc by knocking out 1 tank in each platoon ... like your example above. It would be difficult for the German to know the size of platoon but if he guesses right he'll be ahead of the game.

In real life the Russian command tanks were targeted, as were all command tanks when they could be identified. In Russia for a time period of from June 1941 until after Kursk that was possible from either one side or the other. At times it was possible for both sides to identify the other sides command tanks.

The results were just as you describe. The attacks would stall when the commanders were put out of action.

And, one other interesting observation about morale ... See no evil, hear no evil, then there's no evil. If you had 3 tanks in a V formation and they are all buttoned up and using the Pck sighting rule (can't see behind the tank) then in theory, if a tank is loss "out of LOS" and communication breakdown occurs then the other 2 tanks would be unaware of the loss and continue to fight or press forward if moving.

We are trying to work on Erik to get the new and improved sighting LOS in some kind of a patch.

I've always thought that "borg" morale (if the term is correct) has always been an issue with wargames. What can be done?

Thanks for listening!

Rob

Computer wargames can do anything with morale that the combat model is asked to do. It's a simple set of numbers crunching to do the morale checks for a 3 - 50 element unit. Just put in the base number and have it check against the parameters and do the math.

Such things as "To Hit" against moving targets, where a tank moving fires at an enemy tank moving fast across it's front at a 90 degree angle but is hit and killed with a one round kill may be more difficult but no less important to try to implement if the person doing the code can make it happen.


Good Hunting.

MR

I had an entire panzer platoon that was below half strenght and under constant enemy fire surrender to russian tanks